Ses 
Noe. 


= 
aN; Wiles 
ar eases 


¥ 
AS. 


Sk 


, 


< 
3 
23; 
Ae 

Ke 


5 
ety 





:: 


Pines 


NY 
oD 
o 
oO 
har 
aed 
1 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetictimtituOOhuth 














CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
HAND-BOOK 


THE SPITE 
TIMOTHY AND TITUS, 


BY 


JOH. ED.” HUTHER, TxD., 


PASTOR AT WITTENFORDEN BEI SCHWERIN. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 


DAVID HUNTER, B.A., 


AND TO 


THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 


BY 
Dr. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 


PROFESSOR IN THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 


Rev. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A. 


WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 
TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 


} PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE. 


FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY. 
NEW YORK AND LONDON. 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, 
By FUNK & WAGNALILS, 
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 


PREFACE 


TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


THE present volume of Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Hand-book 
to the New Testament contains the Commentaries on the Pastoral 
Epistles, by Dr. Huther, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Dr. 
Lunemann. In the work of preparing these Commentaries for pub- 
lication in the American edition, I have followed the same general plan 
with that which was adopted in the volume on the Epistles to the Col- 
ossians, Philippians, and Thessalonians, issued within the present year. 
The limits imposed upon me have made it impossible to discuss all the 
points of interest or importance, which the Epistles offer for consider- 
ation, as fully as might have been desired. But I have endeavored to 
follow the course of the chapters and verses, and, in some sense, to give 
a continuous series of annotations on the several Epistles. These anno- 
tations cover more than one hundred and twenty pages, and I trust that 
they will prove to be not otherwise than suggestive and helpful to the 
student. 

The question as to the Pauline authorship of these Epistles is dis- 
cussed with much learning, ability and fairness by Drs. Liinemann 
and Huther. I would commend the careful reading of what they have 
written to all who may use the volume. With the general conclusions 
which they reach, I would here express my agreement, believing, as I 
do, that Paul may probably be regarded as the writer of the Pastoral 
Epistles, but not of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the reason, how- 
ever, which was mentioned in my preface to the volume on “ Phil- 
ippians,” etc., I have refrained from entering upon an independent 
examination of this question, and have confined myself wholly to anno- 
tations explanatory of the meaning and thought of the epistles. In the 
course of these annotations, indeed, I have considered the plan of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and have pointed out its un-Pauline character ; 
but this matter was so intimately connected with the primary purpose 
of my notes that it could not be passed over altogether. What I have 
been led, thus incidentally, to set forth respecting this point is submit- 
ted to the candid consideration of the reader. 

iii 


iv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


As in former volumes, the references to pages in Winer’s and Butt- 
mann’s Grammars of the New Testament, are given both to the German 
and American editions of those works—the American edition being 
designated by the letters E.T. In my own notes, the pages of the 
American translation only are indicated. The abbreviations of the 
names of commentators, in my annotations, will be readily understood 
by the reader. For other abbreviations, reference may be made to 
page xxiv. of the volume on the Epistle to the Romans. 

As in the case of the two other volumes of this Commentary, which 
have passed under my editorial care, I dedicate my portion of the 
present volume to the Students and Graduates of the Divinity School 
of Yale College. It is a pleasure to me to unite my name, once more, 
with theirs, in a book whose object is to aid all honest students of the 
New Testament writings in an impartial investigation of their meaning, 


TIMOTHY DWIGHT. 
New Haven, Oct. 22d, 1885. 


AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 


In publishing the fourth edition of my Commentary on the Pastoral 
Epistles, I recall with painful feeling the man who began and conducted 
the work in which I count it a special honor to take part. When the 
third edition of my Commentary on the Epistle of James appeared in 
the year 1870, he was still busy with undiminished mental vigor in 
conducting his work nearer to that goal of completion, which he had 
kept before him from the first. At that time I did not anticipate that 
in a few years he would be called away from his work. Through his 
death Science has sustained a heavy loss, but she has this comfort, that 
if he himself has departed from her, the work to which he devoted the 
labor of a lifetime still remains, a brilliant example of the most 
thorough and unbiassed exegesis, of an exegesis which, holding itself 
free from all subjective caprice, “devotes itself soberly, faithfully, sub- 
missively, to the service of the Divine Word.” The works of Meyer 
testify that he himself adhered to the law which he set down for the ex- 
positors of the holy Word, viz. that “they must interpret its pure con- 
tents as historical facts in a manner simple, true, and clear, without bias 
and independent of dogmatic prejudice, neither adding nor taking away 
anything, and abstaining from all conjectures of their own” (Preface 
to the fifth edition of the Commentary on 1 Cor.).—Since he invited me 
to take part in the work, it has been my constant endeavor to imitate 
his example; and it shall always be so with me, so long as I am spared 
to go on with it. Of what use is it, either to theological science or to 
the Church, if the expounder of the holy Scriptures uses his acuteness 
in endeavoring to confirm from them his own preconceived opinions, 
instead of faithfully interpreting and presenting the thoughts actually 
contained in them ?—The same endeavor has guided me in this new 
revision, as will be shown, I hope, by the revision itself. In addition 
to the scrutiny to which I have subjected my earlier work, I have also 
carefully considered and examined the writings on the Pastoral Epis- 
tles, published since 1866, when the third edition of this Commentary 
appeared. Above all, I have examined the third edition of van Ooster- 
zee’s Commentary, the practical exposition by Plitt, and Hofmann’s 
- Commentary. While fully acknowledging the acuteness displayed in 
v 


vi , AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


Hofmann’s exposition, I have but seldom been able to agree with it; 
for the most part, I have felt myself bound to refute it. However con- 
vincing it may frequently appear at the first glance, as frequently it 
will not bear an unbiassed, scrutinizing consideration. While it cer- 
tainly does not yield itself to exuberant fancies, it still follows a mode 
of exegesis, in which the chief purpose is to put forth new and striking 
explanations, and then to support them with all kinds of ingenious 
arguments.—Nevertheless I feel myself bound to express my thanks to 
it, because it has incited me to examine the thought of the holy text all 
the more carefully and thoroughly. 

The disfavor with which the Pastoral Epistles used often to be re- 
garded has gradually disappeared, and rightly ; for the more deeply 
we enter into the spirit of their contents, the more they appear worthy 
of the apostle whose name they bear. Excellent service. in presenting 
their fulness of thought has been done by Stirm, a deacon in Reutlin- 
gen, in his treatise published in the Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie 
(vol. xviii. No. 1, 1872), and called “ Hints for Pastoral Theology con- 
tained in the Pastoral Epistles.” The more they who are entrusted 
with the clerical office make use of the contents of these epistles as their 
guiding star, the richer in blessing will their labors be-—To that same 
end may the Lord of the Church bless this my new work! 


JOH. ED. HUTHER. 
WIrTENFORDEN, November, 1875. 


THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 


INTRODUCTION. 


SECTION 1—TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 


IMOTHY.—He was the son of a Christian Jewess (yvvacxdc 
’Tovdaiag mioryc, Acts xvi. 1) named Eunice (2 Tim.i. 5), and 
of a Greek. We cannot determine for certain his place of 





birth. The passage in Acts xx. 4 does not prove that he was 
born in Derbe, since the position of «ai forbids the connection of Tiudéeo¢ 
with AepBaioc.! From Acts xvi. 1, we might possibly take Lystra to be his 
birthplace. If this be right, we may from it explain why in Acts xx. 4, 
Tu66e0¢, without more precise description, is named along with Caius 
of Derbe, since Lystra lies in the neighborhood of Derbe.2 From 
his mother and his grandmother, called Lois, he had enjoyed a pious 
education; and he had early been made acquainted with the holy 
scriptures of the Jews (2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 14,15). When Paul on his second 
missionary journey came into closer connection with him, he was 
already a Christian (uabyrfc), and possessed a good reputation among the 
believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul calls him his ré«vov (1 Tim. i. 2, 18; 
2 Tim. i. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 17), from which it would appear that he had been 
converted by the preaching of the apostle, probably during the apostle’s 
first stay in Lystra (Acts xiv. 6,7); and, according to the reading: rapa 
tivev, in the passage 2. Tim. iii. 14, by means of his mother and grand- 
mother. Paul, after circumcising him, because his father was known in 


the district to be a Gentile,* adopted him as his assistant in the apostleship. 


1 Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, p. held identical with the one mentioned in xix. 


25) argues that AepBatos should go with Tijmo- 
Geos. He points out that in xix. 29, Taios is 
called a Macedonian along with Aristarchus, 
and that xx. 4 would agree with this if kat 
But in 
this construction «ai before Sexodvdos is super- 


Taios were joined to @ecoadovixéwy. 


Suous The Gaius here named is not to be 


29; see Meyer on Acts xx. 4. 

2 According to Otto, the #v does not denote 
Timothy’s abode, but only his temporary so- 
journ occasioned by the presence of Paul—an 
assertion which the context flatly contradicts. 

3From the expression: ori EAAnv umipxev 
(Acts xvi. 3), Otto wishes to infer that the 

1 


a THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


From that time forward, Timothy was one of those who served the apostle 
(ele tv diaxovobvtwr ait, Acts xix. 22), his ovvepyéc. The service (dcaxovia) 
consisted in helping the apostle in the duties of his office, and was there- 
fore not identical with the office of those called evangelists (this against 
Wiesinger). See on 2 Tim. iv. 5—Timothy accompanied the apostle 
through Asia Minor to Philippi; but when Paul and Silas left that city 
(Acts xvi. 40), he seems to have remained behind there for some time, 
along with some other companions of the apostle. At Berea they were 
again together. When Paul afterwards traveled to Athens, Timothy 
remained behind (with Silas) at Berea; but Paul sent a message for him 
to come soon (Acts xvii. 14, 15).!. From Athens, Paul sent him to Thessa- 
lonica, to inquire into the condition of the church there and to strengthen 
it (1 Thess. ili. 1-5). After completing this task, Timothy joined Paul 
again in Corinth (Acts xviii.5; 1 Thess. iii. 6). The two epistles which Paul 
wrote from that place to the Thessalonians were written in Timothy’s 
name also (1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1).2 When Paul on his third 
missionary journey remained for some considerable time in Ephesus, 
Timothy was with him; where he was in the interval is unknown. 
Before the tumult occasioned by Demetrius, Paul sent him from Ephesus 
to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22). Immediately afterwards the apostle wrote 
what is called the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which it would 
appear that Timothy had been commissioned to go to Corinth, but that 
the apostle expected him to arrive there after the epistle (1 Cor. iv. 17, 
xvi. 10; 11); 
out this journey.—When Paul wrote from Macedonia the Second Epistle 


Matthies asserts without proof that Timothy did not carry 


to the Corinthians, Timothy was again with him;?* for Paul composed 
that epistle also in Timothy’s name, a very natural act if Timothy had 
shortly before been in Corinth—He next traveled with the apostle to 
Corinth; his presence there is proved by the greeting which Paul sent 
from him to the church in Rome (Rom. xvi. 21).—When Paul after three 


father was “properly a Hellene, but that not 
much of a Gentile nature was to be seen in 
him,” because vrapxecv, in contrast to gatveo- 
6a, is— “to be fundamentally ” (!). 

1 There is no tenable ground for Otto's asser- 
tion that Silas remained at Berea, and that 
Timothy, after completing the apostle’s com- 
mission in Thessalonica, joined Silas again 
at Berea on the return journey, from which 
placa the two traveled together to Corinth. 

2 Otto asserts that in Corinth Timothy made 


“his first attempts at the xjpuvypa Tod Adyou (2 
Cor. i. 19),” which is in manifest contradiction 
with1 Thess. iii. 1-5. Srypigery and mapaxtAetv 
Tept THS MiaTews Necessarily include the «cypvc- 
gew Tov Aoyov, and are not to be regarded 
merely as the fulfillment of a “ messenger’s 
duty, demanding no particular experience 
nor ability.” 

8 Wieseler assumes that Timothy joined 
Paul again while still in Ephesus (l.c. pp. 57 
f.), but his proofs are not decisive. 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


months left Greece, Timothy, besides others of the apostle’s assistants, 
was in his company. He traveled with him dypx tie ’Asiac, i. e. as far as 
Philippi, from which the passage across to Asia Minor was usually made. 
From there Timothy and some others went before the apostle to Troas, 
where they remained till the apostle also arrived (Acts xx. 8-6). At this 
point there is a considerable blank in Timothy’s history, since he is not 
mentioned again until the apostle’s imprisonment in Rome.’ He was 
with the apostle at that time, because Paul put his name also to the 
Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians. This fact 
is at the same time a proof that no other of his assistants in the apostle- 
ship stood in such close relations with him as Timothy.—When Paul wrote 
the last epistle, he intended to send him as soon as possible to Philippi, in 
order to obtain by him exact intelligence regarding the circumstances of 
the churches there (Phil. ii. 19 ff). 

From our two Epistles to Timothy we learn also the following facts 
regarding the circumstances of his life :— 

According to 1 Tim. i. 3, Paul on a journey to Macedonia left him 
behind in Ephesus, that he might counteract the false doctrine which 
was spreading there more and more. Perhaps on this occasion—if not 
even earlier—Timothy was solemnly ordained to his office by the laying on 
of hands on the part of the apostle and the presbytery. At this ordination 
the fairest hopes of him were expressed in prophetic language (comp. 1 
Tim. 1. 18, iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), and he made a good confession (1 Tim. vi. 
12).—Paul at that time, however, hoped soon to come to him again.—As 
to the period of Paul’s apostolic labors into which this falls, see 2 3.—Later 
on, Paul was a prisoner in Rome. When he was expecting his death as 
near at hand, he wrote to Timothy to come to him soon, before the 
approach of winter, and to bring him Mark, together with certain belong- 
ings left behind in Troas (2 Tim. iv. 9, 11, 18, 21)—Regarding this impris- 
onment of Paul, see ¢ 3. 

Timothy is only once mentioned elsewhere in the N. T., and that is 
in Heb. xiii. 28. It is very improbable that the Timothy there mentioned 
is another person; and from the passage we learn that when the epistle 
was written, he was again freed from an imprisonment, and that its 
author, as soon as he came, wished, along with him, to visit those to whom 
the epistle was directed. 

According to the tradition of the church, Timothy was the first bishop 


1Jn this itis presupposed that thetwo Epis- and the Epistle to Philemon, were written in 
tles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, Rome, and not, as Meyer assumes, in Ceesarea 


4 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 


of Ephesus. Chrysostom, indeed, merely says: djiov, re éxxAnoiay Aourdv 
qv mexcotevpévoc 6 Tidbeoc, 7 Kai éOvog dAdKAnpov to TH ’Aciac (Homil. 15, on 1 
Tim.); but Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 4), says directly: TuuéOeoc rye év 
"Egéow maporxiac iotopeitat mpa@tog tiv Ertoxoryy eiAnoévac. Comp. also Const. 
Apost. i. 7, ch. 46; Photit Bibl. 254——From the First Epistle only this 
much is clear, that the apostle gave to him a right of superintending the 
church at Ephesus, similar to that which the apostles exercised over the 
churches. It was a position from which afterwards the specially episcopal 
office might spring, but it cannot be considered as identical with the 
latter. 

Titus.—Regarding the circumstances of his life, we possess still less 
information than regarding those of Timothy. He was also one of Paul’s” 
assistants, and is first mentioned as such in Gal. ii. 1, where Paul tells us 
that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the journey undertaken 
fourteen years after his conversion or after his first stay in Jerusalem. 
Though Titus was of Gentile origin, Paul did not circumcise him, that 
there might be no yielding to his opponents.—When Paul wrote the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians, he sent Titus to Corinth, that a report might 
be brought to him of the state of matters there. Paul was disappointed 
in his hope of finding him again at Troas (2 Cor. ii. 18), but afterwards 
joined him in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6). The news brought by Titus led 
him to compose the Second Epistle. With this he sent Titus a second time 
to Corinth, where he was at the same time to complete the collection for 
the poor of the church in Jerusalem, which he had already on a previous 
occasion begun (2 Cor, viii. 6, 16, 23)—When Paul, from his imprisonment 
in Rome, wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, Titus was not with him, 
but had gone to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10). On this point we do not 
possess more exact information. / 

From the Epistle to Titus itself, we learn that he had assisted the 
apostle in his missionary labors in Crete, and had been left behind there 
in order to make the further arrangements necessary for forming a church 
(Tit. i. 5). By the epistle he is summoned to come to Nicopolis, where 
Paul wished to spend the winter (Tit. 111. 12)—Paul calls him his yvfouov- 
réxvov Kata Kownv rior, from which it appears that he had been converted 
to Christianity by Paul. 

According to the tradition of the church, Titus was installed by Paul as 
the first bishop of Crete. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 4): Tud0ede ye wiv rig 
év ’Edéow mapotkiac ioropeitat mpatog tiv ExioKoTAY elAnyévar’ Oc Kai Titog rev emi 


Kparne éxxAnocov; comp. Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccles.; Theodoret on 1 Tim. 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


iii; Theophylact, Proem. ad Tit.;, Const. Apost. vii. 46. He is said to have 
died and been buried in Crete in his ninety-fourth year. 


SECTION 2.—CONTENTS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


First Epistle to Timothy.—The epistle begins with a reminder that the 
apostle had left Timothy behind in Ephesus in order to counteract the 
heresies of certain teachers. These heresies are described in detail, and 
the evangelic principle of life is placed in opposition to them (i. 3-10) by 
directing attention to the gespel as it had been entrusted to the apostle. 
This furnishes an opportunity for expressing his thanks for the grace 
shown to him in it (11-17), to which is added an exhortation to Timothy 
to act rightly in regard to it (18-20). Then follow particular directions, first 
as to public intercessions and the behavior of the men and women in 
the meetings of the church (ii. 1-15), and then as to the qualities 
necessary in a bishop and*a deacon (iii. 1-13). After briefly pointing out 
the essential truth of the gospel (14-16), the apostle goes on to speak 
further regarding the heretics, and confutes their arbitrary rules (iv. 1-6). 
After this we have further exhortations to Timothy,—first as to his 
behavior towards the heresy (7-11), then as to his official labors (12-16), 
and lastly in reference to his attitude towards the individual members of 
the church. Under this last head are given more detailed instructions 
about widows and presbyters (v. 1-25), to which are added some special 
remarks regarding slaves (vi. 1, 2).—After another attack on the heretics 
(3-10), there follow again exhortations to Timothy to be true to his calling, 
which are interrupted by an allusion to the rich (11-22). 

Second Epistle to Timothy.—The epistle begins with the apostle’s assurance 
to Timothy that, full of desire to see him again, he remembered him always 
in prayer, and was convinced of his unfeigned faith (i. 3-5). This is 
followed by an exhortation to stir up the gift of the Spirit imparted to him, 
and not be ashamed of the gospel, but to be ready to suffer for it (6-8) ; 
his attention also is directed to the grace of God revealed in the gospel, 
and to the apostle’s example (9-12). Then follow further exhortations to 
Timothy to hold fast the doctrine he had received, and to preserve the 
good thing entrusted to him, the apostle also reminding him of the con- 
duct of the Asiatics who had turned away from him, and of the fidelity 
of Onesiphorus (13-18).—The doctrine received from the apostle he is to 
deliver to other tried men, but he himself is to suffer as a good soldier of 
Jesus Christ, and to remember the Risen One; just as he, the apostle, 
suffers for Christ’s sake, that the elect may become partakers of blessed- 


6 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


ness (ii. 1-13). Then follow warnings against the heresy, which may 
exercise on many a corrupting influence, but cannot destroy the building 
founded by God (14-19). Instructions are also given how Timothy is to 
conduct himself towards this heresy, and towards those who give them- 
selves up to it (20-26). With prophetic spirit the apostle points next 
to the moral ruin which threatens to appear in the future in the most 
varied forms. He pictures the conduct of the heretics, and exhorts 
Timothy on the contrary—in faithful imitation of his exemplar as 
before—to hold fast by that which he knows to be the truth (iii. 1-17). 
In reference to the threatening general apostasy from the pure doctrine 
of the gospel, the apostle exhorts Timothy to perform faithfully the 
evangelic duties of his office, especially as he himself was already at the 
end of his apostolic career (iv. 1-8). Then follow various special com- 
missions, items of news, greetings, the repeated summons to come to him 
soon before the approach of winter, and finally the Christian benediction 
with which the epistle closes. 

The Epistle to Titus After a somewhat elaborate preface, Paul reminds 
Titus that he had left him behind in Crete for the purpose of ordaining 
presbyters in the churches there. The qualities are named which the 
presbyter ought to possess, and Paul points out the upholding of the pure 
gospel as the most important requisite of all, that the presbyter may be 
able to withstand the continually growing influence of the heretics. The 
mention of the heretics in Crete gives the apostle an opportunity of 
quoting a saying of Epimenides, which describes the character of the 
Cretans, while at the same time he sketches the heretics, with their 
arbitrary commands and their hypocritical life, and vindicates against 
them the principle of life in the gospel (i. 5-16). Then follow rules of 
conduct for the various members of the church, for old and young, men 
and women, together with an exhortation to Titus to show a good 
example in work and doctrine, and especially to call upon. the slaves to 
be faithful to their masters. These exhortations are supported by pointing 
to the moral character of God’s grace (ii. 1-15).—Then follows the injunc- 
tion that Titus is to urge the Christians to obedience towards the higher , 
powers, and to a peaceful behavior towards all men. The latter point is 
enforced by pointing to the undeserved grace of God which has been 
bestowed on Christians (iii. 1-7). To this are added warnings against 
heresy, and directions how Titus is to.deal with a heretic (8-11). The 
epistle closes with an injunction to come to the apostle at Nicopolis, some 


commissions, greetings, and the benediction. 


INTRODUCTION. a 


The First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are letters on 
business, both occasioned by the apostle’s desire to impart to his colleagnes 
definite instructions for their work in Ephesus and in Crete respectively. 
The Epistle to Titus has at the same time the purpose of enjoining him, 
after the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus, to come to Paul at Nicopolis.— 
The Second Epistle to Timothy is a letter “purely personal” (Wiesinger), 
occasioned by the wish of the apostle to see him as soon as possible 
in Rome. It was written, too, for the purpose of encouraging him to 
faithfulness in his calling as a Christian, and particularly in his official 
labors. The apostle felt all the greater need for writing, that he perceived 
in his colleague a certain shrinking from suffering —The instructions in 
the First Epistle to Timothy refer to the meetings of the church, to 
prayer and the behavior of the women in the meetings, to the qualifica- 
tions of bishops and deacons, to widows, to the relation of slaves to their 
masters, but at the same time also to Timothy’s conduct in general as 
well as in special cases—In the Epistle to Titus the apostle instructs 
him regarding the ordination of bishops, the conduct of individual mem- 
bers of the church, both in particular according to their age, sex, and 
position, and also in their general relation to the higher powers and to 
non-Christians. In all three epistles, besides the more general exhorta- 
tions to faithfulness in word and act, there is a conspicuous reference to 
heretics who threaten to disturb the church. The apostle exhorts his 
fellow-workers not only to hold themselves free from the influence of such 
men, but also to counteract the heresy by preaching the pure doctrine of 
the gospel, and to warn the church against the temptations of such heresy. 
He imparts also rules for proper conduct towards the heretics. 

The three epistles are closely related in contents, and also in the expres- 
sion and the form in which the thoughts are developed. They have thus 
received a definite impress, which distinguishes them from the apostle’s 
other epistles. All Paul’s epistles contain expressions peculiar to him 
alone, and this is certainly the case with every one of these three. But 
there is also in them a not inconsiderable number of expressions peculiar 
to them all, or even to two of them, and often repeated in them, but 
occurring only seldom or not at all in the other epistles of the N.T. The 
nature of the Christian life is denoted specially by eioéBera. 1 Tim. ii. 2, 
iii. 16, etc.; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1 (evoeBév, 1 Tim. v. 4; eboeBdc, 2 Tim. iil. 
12; Tit. ii.12). The following virtues are specially extolled as Christian :— 
ceuvéryc, 1 Tim. ii. 2, iii. 4; Tit. ii. 7 (ceuvdc, 1 Tim. ii. 8,11; Tit. ii. 2); 

— owppoobvy, 1 Tim. ii. 9,15 (cédpor, 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. 1. 8, ii. 2,5; cwgpdvue, 


8 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


Tit. ii. 12; cwpporéu, Tit. ii. 6; owppovifer, Tit. ii. 4; copporopdc, 2 Tim. 1. 7). 
The same or very similar words, which occur seldom or nowhere else, are 
used to denote the doctrine of the gospel; e.g. the word dé:dackadia, espe- 
cially in connection with tycavovcw, 1 Tim. i. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit.i.9, ii. 1. 
The use of byaivw and iyeje in general is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles: 
Aéyor bycaivovrec, 1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim. i. 13; Adyog byujc, Tit. ii. 8. We may 
also note: % Kat’ evoéBecav didacKkadia, 1 Tim. vi. 3, and 7 aAgbera 7 Kat’ evoé Berar, 
Tit. i. 1; % xaay ddackadia, 1 Tim. iv. 6 («add is also a word which occurs 
very often in all three epistles). Even in describing the heresy there is a 
great agreement in all three. Its substance is denoted in a more general 
way by pido, 1 Tim. i. 45 2 Tim. iv. 4; Tit. i. 14; more specially by yeve- 
adoyia, 1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. iii. 9. Frequently it is reproached with occasion- 
ing foolish investigations (uwpai Cyrqoec), as in 1 Tim. vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 23; 
Tit. iii. 9. In 1 Tim.i.6 it is on this account called paraoAoyia, and in 
accordance with this the heretics are called in Tit. i. 10 yarawAdyo. In 
1 Tim. vi. 4 the blame of Aoyouayia: is given to it, and in 2 Tim. ii. 14 there 
is a warning against Aoyouayetv. The same reproach is contained in ai 
BéBndor Kevopwvriat, Which is found in 1 Tim. vi. 20, and 2 Tim. ii. 16.—But 
also in other respects there is a striking agreement in these epistles. 
Among the points of agreement are’ the formula, miatd¢ 6 Adyoc, 1 Tim. i, 15, 
iii. 1,iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8; the word apréoua:, 1 Tim. v. 8; 2 Tim. 
ii. 12, 18, iii. 5; Tit. i. 16,-ii. 12; the formula of assurance, dauapripeobat 
évdriov (rod Beod Kai kupiov "I. Xp.), 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1; the figu- 
rative expression, 7 mayi¢ rvov dia3ddov, 1 Tim. iii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 26; the 
phrase, gvAdocew tiv rapabjxny, 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14; further, the 
words, kar’ éxcraygv, 1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. 1.3; troueuvgoner, 2 Tim. ii. 14; Tit. 
iii. 1; 8? fv airiav, 2 Tim. i. 6, 12; Tit. 1.13; 4 éxiddvera (rod Kvpiov), used of 
the fature return of Christ, 1 Tim. -vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Tit. ii. 18; 
deorérn¢ (instead of «ipioc, Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22), 1 Tim. vi. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 
21; Tit. ii. 9; mapacreioar, 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11; 2 Tim, ii. 238; Tit. i. 10; 
SiaBeBaoroba repi tivoc, 1 Tim. i..7; Tit. iii. 8, etc.—Wherever in the three 
epistles the same subject is spoken of, substantially the same expressions 
and turns of expression are used, though with some modifications. Thus 
the benedictions in the inscription agree: ydpic, éAeoc, eiphvy (Tit. 1. 4 should, 
however, perhaps have the reading: ydpuc¢ xai etppvy). In reference to the 
redemption by Christ we have in 1 Tim. 11. 6: 6 dove éavrdy avtidutpov bxép 
révrov; and Tit. ii. 14: d¢ &Mdoxev éavrdv brép judvr, wa Avtpdoytac juac; in ref- 
erence to his office Paul says in 1 Tim. ii. 7: ei¢ 6 (7d papripiov) éréOyv eyo 


whpv§ Kal amdotodoc . . . diWacKahog evar ; and so alsoin 2 Tim.i. 11. The 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


necessary qualities of the bishop are mentioned in the same way in 1 Tim. 
iii. 2 ff. and Tit. 1.6: pag yuvarkdg avip, copper, gAdsEvoc, 7 TApowvoc, wy TAHKTIC. 
The general exhortations to Timothy in 1 Tim. vi. 11 and 2 Tim. ii. 22 
agree with each other almost to the very letter. 

In the other Pauline epistles the fullness of the apostle’s thought strug- 
gles with the expression, and causes peculiar difficulties in exposition. 
The thoughts slide into one another, and are so intertwined in many 
forms that not seldom the new thought begins before a correct expression 
has been given to the thought that preceded. Of this confusion there is 
no example in the Pastoral Epistles. Even in such passages as come 
nearest to this confused style, such as the beginning of the First and 
Second Epistles to Timothy (Tit. 11. 11 ff., 111. 4 ff), the connection of ideas 
is still, on the whole, simple. It is peculiar that, as De Wette has shown, 
the transition from the special to a general truth is often made suddenly— 
thus 1 Tim. i. 15, ii. 4-6, iv. 8-10; 2 Tim. i. 9 ff, 11. 11-18, i. 12; Tit. ii. 
11-14, iii. 4-7; and that after such general thoughts a resting-point is 
often sought in an exhortation or instruction addressed to the receivers of 
the epistle, as in 1 Tim. iv. 6, 11, vi. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iii. 5; Tit. ii. 15, iii. 8: 


SECTION 3—TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


1. First Epistle to Timothy—Regarding the time of the composition of this 
epistle, different views from an early period have been put forward, since 
the indications contained in the epistle itself leave a difficulty in assigning 
to it its proper place in the events of the apostle’s life. According to 
these indications, Paul had been for some time with Timothy in Ephesus, 
and had traveled from there to Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind in 
Ephesus to take his place. Probably the epistle was written by Paul from 
Macedonia, to remind Timothy of his charge, and to give him suitable 
instructions; for, although Paul hoped to return to Ephesus soon, still a 
delay was regarded as possible (chap. iii. 14, 15).—According to Acts, Paul 
was twice in Ephesus. The first occasion was on his second missionary 
journey from Antioch, when he was returning from Corinth to Antioch 
(Acts xviii. 19). On this first occasion he stayed there only a short time, 
as he wished to be in Jerusalem in time for the near-approaching festival. 
The composition cannot be assigned to that occasion, since there was at 
that time no Christian church in Ephesus, and Paul was not traveling to 
Macedonia.—On his third missionary journey Paul was in Ephesus a 
.secoud time. This time he stayed for two or three years, and then, after 


10 _ THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


the riot caused by Demetrius, traveled to Macedonia and Greece (Acts xx. 
1, 2). Theodoret, and after him many other expositors, assume that Paul 
wrote the epistle on this journey to Macedonia, or in Macedonia. But to 
this the following circumstances are opposed :—(1) According to Acts xix. 
22, Paul, before his own departure from Ephesus, had already sent Tim- 
othy to Macedonia; we are not told that Timothy, after being commis- 
sioned to go to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17), returned to Ephesus again before 
the apostle’s departure, as the apostle certainly had expected (according 
to 1 Cor. xvi. 11). (2) When Paul undertook that journey, he did not 
intend to return soon to Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 6, 7), which decidedly was 
his intention at the time of the composition of the epistle (1 Tim. iii. 14); 
and on his return journey from Greece he sailed from Troas past Ephesus 
for the express purpose of avoiding any stay there (Acts xx. 16). (8) Ac- 
cording to 2 Cor. i. 1, Timothy was in Macedonia with Paul when he 
wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and, according to Acts xx. 4, 
he accompanied the apostle on his journey from Corinth to Philippi. 
Timothy therefore must also have left Ephesus after the apostle’s depart- 
ure, although the apostle had charged him to remain there till his own 
return (1 Tim. iy. 13), and this we can hardly suppose to have been the 
case. All these reasons prove that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to 
Macedonia, mentioned in Acts xx. 1, cannot be the same with that of 
which he speaks in 1 Tim. 1. 3. 

Some expositors (Bertholdt, Matthies), alluding to Acts xx. 3-5, suppose 
that Timothy set out from Corinth before the apostle, and then went to 
Ephesus, where he received the epistle. The supposition is, however, 
contradicted by ropevduevoc ei¢ Maxedoviav, This objection Bertholdt can 
get rid of only by the most arbitrary combinations, Matthies only oy 
most unwarrantably explaining zopevéuevoc to be equivalent to ropevdueror. 
Besides, Luke’s historical narrative is against the whole hypothesis, unless, 
as Bertholdt actually does, we charge it with an inaccuracy which distorts 
the facts of the case.—If the composition of the epistle is to be inserted 
among the incidents in the apostle’s life known to us, the only hypothesis 
left is, that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, which is 
mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 8, and during which Timothy was left behind by 
him in Ephesus, falls into the period of his sojourn for two or three years 
in Ephesus, but is not mentioned by Luke. This is the supposition of 
Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters), who follows Mosheim anil 
Schrader. It is not only admitted, on the whole, that the apostle may 


possibly have made a journey which Luke leaves unnoticed, but there are 


INTRODUCTION. ih 


also several passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 17 ; 
2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2) which put it beyond doubt that Paul had 
been in Corinth not once but twice before their composition, but that the 
second time he had stayed there only a short time. For this journey, of 
which Luke tells us nothing, we can find no place in the apostle’s history, 
unless during his stay at Ephesus; see Wieseler, l.c. pp. 232, ff. It is 
natural, therefore, to identify this journey with the one to Macedonia 
mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, and to suppose that the epistle was written on 
this journey from Macedonia. There are still, however, several consider- 
ations against this view. One is that both the church organization pre- 
supposed in the epistle, and the requirement that the éxicxoro¢ should not 
be vedguroc, indicate that the church had already been some time in exist- 
ence. To this Wieseler, indeed, replies that the journey was undertaken 
shortly before the end of the apostle’s stay in Corinth, so that the church 
had then been long enough in existence to justify the presupposition and 
the requirement. But still there is against this hypothesis the considera- 
tion that it supposes the apostle to have been in Corinth himself, shortly 
before the composition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, so that he 
could not therefore have any sufficient occasion for writing to the church 
there. Besides, the passage in Acts xx. 29, 80 is against Wieseler’s view. 
According to the epistle, the heresy had already made its way into the 
church at Ephesus, but, according to that passage, Paul mentions *he 
heresy as something to be expected in the future. Supposing even that 
the words é& iuav aitov do not refer to the church, but only to the presby- 
ters assembled at Miletus, still ei¢ tuace in ver. 29 must be taken to refer 
generally to the Christians in Ephesus. Surely Paul, in his address to the 
presbyters, would not have passed over the presence of heretics in 
Ephesus, if he knew the church to be so much threatened by the danger 
that he thought it necessary, even before this, to give Timothy solemn 
instructions regarding it, as he does in his epistle-—Further, the view 
implies that Paul had only for a short time been separated from Timothy, 
_and that he must have sent him away immediately after his own return. 
But how does the whole character of the epistle agree with this? The 
instructions which Paul gives to Timothy indicate that the latter was to 
labor in the church for some time; and the greater the danger threatened 
it by the heresy, the more inconsistent it seems that Paul, after giving 
these instructions, should have taken Timothy away so soon from his 
labors in the church.—The views mentioned hitherto proceed from a pre- 
‘ supposed interpretation of 1 Tim. i. 3, viz. that Paul commissioned Tim- 


12 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


othy to remain in Ephesus, and that the commission was given when 
Paul departed from Ephesus to Macedonia. This presupposition, how- 
ever, has been declared erroneous by several expositors, who refer 
Topevouevog ei¢ Maxedoviay not to the apostle, but to Timothy. Paulus 
explains zpooueivac as = “abide by a thing,” joins topevduevoc ei¢ Maxed. to 
in rapayyeianc, and takes the latter imperatively, so that the sense is: “As 
1 have exhorted thee to abide in Ephesus, and warn them against false 
doctrine, so do thou travel now to Macedonia, and exhort certain people 
there to abstain from false doctrine.” The opinion of Paulus is therefore 
that Paul wrote the epistle during his imprisonment at Ceesarea.—Schneck- 
enburger and Bottger try to help the matter by conjecture, wishing both 
to read, instead of zpooyeiva, the participle mpooyeivac. The former then 
assumes that the epistle was composed at the time denoted in Acts xxi. 
26; the latter, that it was written in Patara (Acts xxi. 1), or in Miletus 
(Acts xx.17). These obviously are arbitrary suppositions. If the journey 
to Macedonia, mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, is not to be understood as one 
made by the apostle, but as made by Timothy, then it is much more 
natural to suppose with Otto that this is the journey of Timothy which is 
mentioned in Acts xix. 22, and that Paul wrote the epistle in Ephesus. 
This is the view which Otto has sought to establish in the first book of 
his work of research, Die geschichtlichen Verhiiltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. But 
this, too, is wrecked on the right explanation of 1 Tim. i. 3, which refers 
ropevopevog ei¢ Mak. to the subject contained in wapexddeca; see on this point 
the exposition of the passage. 

The Epistle to Titus.—The following are the historical circumstances to 
which this epistle itself points. After Paul had labored in Crete, he left . 
Titus behind there. Then he wrote to the latter this epistle, instructing 
him, so soon as Artemas and Tychicus had been sent to him, to come 
with all haste to Nicopolis, where the apostle had resolved to pass the 
winter.—The epistle, indeed, contains nothing definite regarding the first 
beginning of Christianity in Crete, nothing regarding the duration and 
extent of the apostle’s labors there, nothing regarding the length of time 
which intervened between the apostle’s departure from Crete and the 
composition of the epistle; but it is probable that when Paul came to 
Crete he found Christianity already existing there, and that he himself 
remained there only a short time; for on the one hand there were 
already Christian churches there in the chief places, at least in several 
towns of the island, at the time of composing the epistle, while on the 
other hand they were still unorganized. It is probable that the epistle 


INTRODUCTION. 13 


was written by Paul not long after his departure, for it is not to be sup- 
posed that Paul would leave his substitute in the apostleship long without 
written instructions. It is probable also that Paul gave Titus these instruc- 
tions some time before the beginning of winter, for it would have been 
meaningless to give instructions, unless Paul intended Titus to labor in 
Crete for some considerable time. 

If we set out with the presupposition that the composition of the epistle 
is to be placed in that period of the Apostle Paul’s life which is described 
in Acts, we may thus state more definitely the question regarding the 
apostle’s stay in Crete, and the composition of the epistle. Did both take 
place before, or after, or during the two or three years’ stay in Ephesus 
(Acts xix.)? Each of these suppositions has its supporters among exposi- 
tors and critics. Those who place the two events in the period before the 
stay at Ephesus, assume as a fixed date either the time during which Paul 
was first in Corinth (Acts xviii. 1-18) (Michaelis), or the time during 
which he was traveling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 19) (Hug, 
Hemsen), or, lastly, the time after he had passed through Galatia and 
Phrygia in the beginning of his third missionary journey, and before he 
went from there to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23) (Credner, Neudecker). 
To all these views alike, however, there is this objection, that Apollos 
could not be the apostle’s assistant before the (second) arrival in Corinth 
(Acts xvill. 24-xix. 1), whereas he is so named in this epistle. We would 
then have to suppose that another Apollos was meant here—which would 
be altogether arbitrary. There are, besides, special objections to these 
three views. Against the first, according to which Paul had made the 
journey from Corinth to Crete, and from there to Nicopolis in Epirus (iii. 
12), and had then returned to Corinth, it may be urged that the apostle’s 
second stay in Corinth, alluded to in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, 2 Cor. ii. 1, ete., did not 
take place then, but later. Against the second, we might object not only 
that the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem was undertaken with some 
haste, so as to leave no room for labors in Crete, but also that it takes 
. Nicopolis to be the town in Cilicia, without giving any reason why Paul 
should pass the winter there and not in Antioch. As to the third view, 
which is, that Paul for this third missionary journey had chosen Ephesus 
mainly as his goal (Acts xviii. 21), and that his labors, therefore, on the 
journey thither consisted only in confirming those who already believed 
(Acts xviii. 23: émornpifev mévtac rove pabytac), how are we to reconcile 
with it the facts that Paul, instead of going at once to Ephesus from Phrygia, 
' went to Crete and Corinth, that he there resolved to pass the winter in 


14 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


Nicopolis (by which Credner in his Hinl. in d. N. T. understands the town 
in Cilicia), and that then only did he go to Ephesus ?—There is still less 
justification for the opinion of some expositors, that Paul traveled to 
Crete at the date defined by Acts xv. 41, and wrote the epistle later during 
his two or three years’ stay in Ephesus. The former part of this is con- 
tradicted by the route (comp. xv. 41 and xvi. 1) furnished by the apostle 
himself; the latter, by the circumstance that almost the whole of the 
apostle’s second, and a part of his third, missionary journey lay between 
the beginning of Titus’ independent labors in Crete and the despatch of 
the epistle to him. 

The second supposition is, that both events are to be placed in the time 
after the apostle’s stay at Ephesus, 7. e. in the period mentioned in Acts 
xx. 1-3. Its representatives, as before, differ as to the details. Some 
suppose that Paul, on the journey from Ephesus to Greece, went from 
Macedonia (vv. 1, 2) to Crete; others, that he undertook this journey 
during his three months’ stay in Greece (ver. 3). According to the former 
opinion, we should have to suppose that Titus, after completing his 
second mission to Corinth, returned again to the apostle in Macedonia; 
that Paul then made the journey with him to Crete, and from there 
returned to Macedonia alone; that he then wrote the epistle from 
Macedonia, and afterwards went to Corinth. In this way, therefore, Paul 
after composing the Second Epistle to the Corinthians would have twice 
journeyed past Greece, whereas it must have been of great importance to 
him, after the last news he had received from Corinth, not to put off his 
journey thither.—The /atter opinion, supported particularly by Matthies, 
refutes itself, in so far as the three months which Paul spent in Hellas 
were winter months, in which traveling to and fro to Crete was hardly 
possible. Besides, it was when Paul returned from Crete that he formed 
his plan of passing the winter at Nicopolis. He then informed Titus of 
it, with the remark that he was to come to him in that place, after he had 
first waited for the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus. Wiesinger is right in 
saying: “ Unless we exercise ingenuity, we must take the xéxpixa wapayer- 
paca (chap. iii. 12) to have been written before the approach of winter.” 

The third supposition is, that Paul undertook the journey to Crete from 
Fphesus before his departure to Macedonia, and also wrote the Epistle to 
Titus from there. Wieseler defends it with great acuteness. It puts the 
case in this way. After Paul had stayed over two years in Ephesus, he 
made by way of Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3) a: journey (the second, not men- 
- tioned in Acts) to Corinth. On this journey, which was but short, he was 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


accompanied by Titus, who also went with him to Crete. On departing 
from Crete, he left Titus behind there, returned to Ephesus, and from 
Ephesus wrote the Epistle to Titus. Then he sent Timothy to Macedonia, 
instructing him to go to Corinth, and wrote afterwards our First Epistle to 
the Corinthians. He next sent Tychicus and Artemas to Crete, and bade 
Paul went on 
They did not 


meet, however, at Troas, but in Macedonia, when Titus was a second time 


Titus return to him. Titus was sent afterwards to Corinth. 


the journey to Macedonia, hoping to meet Titus at Troas. 


sent away to Corinth. After the apostle had written our Second Epistle 
to the Corinthians, he went through Macedonia to Nicopolis in Epirus, 
where he spent the first months of winter, going afterwards to Corinth.— 
However well all this seems to go together, there are still the following 
reasons against the hypothesis :—(1) If Paul made the second journey to 
Corinth at the time here mentioned, he can have employed only a short 
time in it. How, then, can we conceive that he used this short time for 
missionary labors in Crete? (2) Paul wrote to Titus that he was to remain 
in Crete till Tychicus and Artemas were sent to him, and that then he was 
to come to Nicopolis. This hypothesis would make out that he had 
changed his mind, for according to it he bade Titus come to him at 
Ephesus. Besides, we cannot think that, just after he had assigned to 
Titus an important task in Crete, he should take him so quickly away 
from it again. (8) It is improbable also that Paul should have chosen for 
his winter residence a town in which he had not been before, and where, 
therefore, he could not know how he would be received. His resolution 
seems rather to presuppose that he had labored before in Nicopolis.! (4) In 
1 Cor. xvi. 6 Paul writes to the Corinthians: rpd¢ imac dé tuyiv rapapuerd, F 
kai rapayeyidow. According to Wieseler, this mpd¢ iuac is not to be referred 
to the Corinthians alone, but generally to the Christians in Achaia, to 
whom (according to i. 2) the epistle is addressed. As Nicopolisin Epirus, 


on the authority of Tacitus,? was counted as belonging to Achaia, Wiese- 


10Otto objects to this, that Paul might very 
well spend a winter in a town in which he 
had not before preached; but that is not the 
point. The point is that Paul should have 
formed a resolution to remain for the winter 
in a town, even before he knew whether 
his preaching would be received there or 
not. 

2Tacitus, Ann. ii. 53: “Sed eum honorem 
Germanicus iniit apud urbem Achajae Nico- 


polim.” Pliny also, Nat. Hist. iv. 2, assigns 


Nicopolis to Acarnania, while Strabo, xvii. p. 
840, describes, according to the arrangement 
of the Emperor Augustus, the province in 
these words: ‘EBddunv & ’Axaiay péxpr @er- 
TaAdtas Kat Aitwi@v kai ’Akapvavewy kal TLVeP 
"Hretpwrixkwv ebvav, 60a TH Maxedovia mpoow- 


? 


pioto.” (Wieseler, |. c. p. 353.) In opposition 
to Wieseler’s assertion, Otto (pp. 362-366) 
seeks to prove that Nicopolis itself was not 
counted in Achaia, but only the suburb of the 


town situated on the Acarnanian side. 


16 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


ler is of opinion that by spending the winter in Nicopolis the apostle kept 
the promise given in that passage. But although the epistle was not 
directed merely to the church in Corinth, it has a special reference to that 
church, so that its readers could surely understand the words only of an 
intended stay in Corinth, and not in a place so far distant from Corinth. 
Paul could not possibly be thinking then of Nicopolis, as is obvious from 
the fact that at that time, as Wieseler himself maintains, he had not been 
there; he did not preach the gospel in Nicopolis till later. Paul, how- 
ever, in the epistle regarded his readers as Christians only, not as those 
who were afterwards to be converted to Christianity. Lastly, although 
Augustus extended the name of Achaia to Epirus, it does not follow that 
in common life Nicopolis was considered to be in Achaia. It should be 
added, too, that Paul, in Wieseler’s representation, had not at all fulfilled 
the promise given in Tit. ii. 18, for he supposes that the apostle remained 
in Nicopolis only two months of winter, and therefore went to Corinth in 
the middle of winter.—There may be, too, some accessory circumstancés 
which are favorable to Wieseler’s view, and give it an air of probability ; 
such circumstances as the following :—that Apollos was along with Paul 
in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 12; Tit. ili. 18); that Tychicus as an Asiatic (Acts 
xx. 4) probably became acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, and that the 
mention of him in Tit. 111. 18 agrees with the composition of the epistle 
in Ephesus ; that by the two brothers who accompanied Titus to Corinth 
we may understand Tychicus and Trophimus—make the theory probable, 
but cannot completely establish its correctness. Like Wieseler, Reuss 
(Gesch. d. heil. Schriften d. N. T., 2d ed. 1858, 2 87, pp. 73 f.) connects the 
apostle’s journey to Crete with his second (see Meyer on 2 Cor., Introd. 3 2 
Rem.) journey to Corinth during the three years’ stay at Ephesus; but he 
differs from Wieseler in supposing that Paul journeyed first to Crete and 
then to Corinth, that from the latter place he wrote the epistle, that he 
then went farther to the north to Tlyricum, where trace of him is lost, 
and returned to Ephesus towards the end of winter. To all this we must 
say that not only is it inconceivable that Paul should have interrupted his 
three years’ stay by various missionary journeys, occupying so much time, 
and to districts so remote, but also that Acts xx. 81 contradicts such a 
theory. Otto, too, refutes the theory of the apostle’s journey to Crete, and 
the composition of the epistle during the three years’ stay at Ephesus. 
In his opinion, Paul made from Ephesus an excursion to Crete,—not 
mentioned in Acts by Luke,—and on that occasion visited Corinth é 
rapédw (1 Cor. xvi. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2). Then in Ephesus 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


after he had written the lost epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), he 
addressed a letter to Titus whom he had left in Crete—The passages 
quoted put it beyond doubt that Paul from Ephesus made a visit to 
Corinth éy rapédy before composing what is called his First Epistle to the 
Corinthians. Not only, however, is there no indication that Crete was at 
that time the goal of his journey, but it is also improbable. The theory 
makes the journey in any case a short one, and Paul could not well 
choose for its goal a country in which he could not beforehand determine 
the length of his stay, as he had not been there before. Otto recognizes 
fully the objections arising from the contents of the epistle, which are 
against placing the date of composition in the three years’ stay ; but he 
thinks to overcome them by supposing that the dates in it rest on a plan 
of the journey, afterwards altered by the apostle. It is certainly clear 
from 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23, that Paul, on account of circumstances in Corinth, 
did indeed alter the plan of the journey he had previously formed ; but 
that he ever intended to go to Nicopolis in order to spend the winter 
there, is a fiction contradicted by what he says himself in the passages 
quoted. According to these, his original plan was to come from Ephesus 
direct to Corinth, to pass from there to Macedonia, and to return from 
Macedonia to Corinth again in order to set out for Judea. There is no 
trace in the apostle’s plans of a journey to Epirus and a winter residence 
in Nicopolis. The latter he could not even think of, for the reason 
quoted above. 
2. Second Epistle to Timothy.—The historical circumstances alluded to in 
the epistle prove that it was written by the apostle in imprisonment 
in Rome; comp. i. 8, 12, 16, 17, ete—This imprisonment has been 
held to be the same as that mentioned by Luke in the Acts, and a 
different date has therefore been assigned to the composition of the epistle. 
Wieseler, following Hemsen, Kling, and others, supposes that the epistle 
belongs to the time following the dveria, mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, and 
was therefore composed after the Epistle to the Philippians. He rests his 
| supposition on two grounds—(1) That while in his Epistle to the Philip- 
pians the apostle was still able to cherish the hope of being soon set free, 
in this epistle he expresses definite anticipations of death. (2) That in 
Phil. ii. 19-24 the apostle expresses his intention of sending Timothy to 
Philippi, and that at the time of composing this epistle Timothy was 
actually in those regions, viz. at Ephesus. Against this second ground 
Otto rightly maintains that “ Timothy would not have served the apostle 


as a child his father,” if after being expected to bring (Phil. ii. 19) comfort 
2 


18 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


to the imprisoned apostle by the news from Philippi, he did not return at 
once to Rome, but proceeded instead to Ephesus, and there remained till 
the apostle “by a solemn apostolic message compelled him to return.” 
Besides, Otto insists that, as Wieseler’s interpretaton of 2 Tim. iv. 16 is 
that “the apostle is telling Timothy of his first azo4oyia,” the latter 
according to this was sent away before the first judicial hearing, 7. e. before 
he could know how the case would end; whereas according to Phil. ii. 23, 
24, “he makes the despatch of Timothy depend on his expectation of a 
favorable conclusion of the trial.” —On these grounds Otto rejects Wieseler’s 
hypothesis, but at the same time he himself—agreeing with Schrader, 
Matthies, and others—supposes that the epistle was written in the begin- 
ning of the dveria mentioned, and therefore before the composition of the 
Epistle to the Philippians. But, as Wieseler and Wiesinger rightly 
observe, “the whole position of the apostle as represented in the epistle ” 
is against this view. According to the apostle’s utterances in the Epistle 
to the Philippians, he was uncertain about the fate hanging over him, 
but circumstances have so shaped themselves that the expectation of being 
freed from imprisonment decidedly prevailed with him, and hence he 
wrote: wérola év Kupiw, Ot. . . Taxéwe éAevooua. In this epistle there is 
no trace of any such expectation. The apostle rather sees his end close 
approaching, chap. iv. 6-8; and although in the first arodoyia he had been 
rescued, as he says, é« otéuatog Aéovtoc, and now expresses the hope that 
the Lord would rescue him a76 ravri¢ épyov rovnpod, he is thinking not of 
a release from imprisonment, but of a rescue cic tyv Baoideiav abtov TH 
éxovpaviov. Otto indeed maintains that the apostle’s expressions in chap. 
iv. 6-8 do not refer to the end of his life, but to the end appointed to him 
of his missionary labors in the apostleship, and that in the Second Epistle 
to Timothy there is no trace whatever of anticipations or expectations of 
death ; but this assertion is based on an exposition which, however acute, 
is anything but tenable. See on this the commentary on the passages in 
question.—Besides, several of the special notices made by the apostle 
weigh against the composition of the epistle during the imprisonment 
mentioned by Luke. Of special weight are the remarks regarding Erastus 
and Trophimus. Of the former Paul says that he remained in Corinth, 
of the latter, that he was left behind in Miletus sick. This presupposes a 
journey made by the apostle to Rome by way of Corinth and Miletus. 
But on the voyage which Paul made from Caesarea to Rome as a prisoner, 
he did not touch at these places. Hence we cannot but suppose that the 


xeference in both cases is to the apostle’s previous journey to Jerusalem; 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


but against this there is the inconceivability of his still mentioning those 
circumstances after a lapse of several years. Besides, according to Acts 
xxi. 29, Trophimus was with the apostle in Jerusalem. Wieseler can only 
get over this by the following artiticial combination: ‘The ship in which 
Paul as a prisoner embarked at Caesarea in order to be brought to Rome, 
went to Adramyttium in the neighborhood of Troas. With it Paul went 
as far as Myrain Lycia. There he embarked in another ship which sailed 
direct for Italy. Trophimus accompanied the apostle to Myra; there he 
stayed behind on account of his illness, in order to go on with the ‘ship 
from Adramyttium as far as Miletus, which was probably his place of 
residence, and where he wished to stay.” This arrangement, artificial to 
begin with, is contradicted by the apostle’s expression in chap. iv, 20. 
Besides, all this could not but have been long known to Timothy, who 
was with Paul in the interval, known all the more if, as Wieseler thinks, 
the apostle had intended to take Trophimus with him to Rome as a 
witness against his Jewish accusers. It is an unsatisfactory device to 
maintain that the emphasis is laid on Tpdguov dé and on aobevoivta, and 
that Paul by this remark wished to remind Timothy only of the feeble 
health of Trophimus, which might even prevent him from coming to 
Rome. The sentence has anything but the form of such a reminder.— 
Otto attacks the point in a different way, by questioning the presence of 
Trophimus in Jerusalem at the time when the apostle was put in prison. 
He asserts that joav mpoewpakétec in Acts xxi. 29 must be referred to the 
apostle’s presence in Jerusalem four years previously, since according to 
Acts xx. 4 Trophimus accompanied the apostle on his return from his 
third missionary journey only into Asia and no farther. Against this, 
however, it is to be noted that the apostle’s companions there named did 
really go farther, as is plain from Acts xxi. 12; for by the jueice Luke 
cannot have meant himself alone, but himself and the companions who 
had accompanied the apostle on his journey to Macedonia. “A ypx rae ’Aolag 
in Acts xx. 4 simply means that these companions of the apostle remained 
with him till he had come to the place where the passage across to Asia 
was made. There they left him, crossing over to Troas without him; 
but later on, Paul again came to them here, and then they continued 
their journey in company. No hint is given by Luke that they remained 
at Miletus after the apostle’s departure. There is therefore no ground for 
assuming that Trophimus was not in Jerusalem when the apostle was put 
in prison. Rather the opposite. It is inconceivable that the Asiatic Jews 


should after so long a time have used a suspicion formed four years before ag 


20 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


a ground of complaint against the apostle. We do not see why they should 
not have brought it forward when it was formed. Besides, according to 
Otto’s hypothesis, these same Asiatic Jews must be regarded as having 
been present in Jerusalem on both occasions.—In regard to the mention 
of Erastus, Wieseler is of opinion that he too was important to the 
apostle as a witness, and that the apostle had summoned him to Rome 
either through Timothy himself or through Onesiphorus, but that he 
stayed on nevertheless at Corinth, and that this is what Paul now com- 
municates to Timothy. But there is nowhere the slightest trace of such 
asummons. Further, the order in which ver. 20 occurs, by no means 
makes it probable that it referred to judicial matters. Something was 
said of these in vv. 16 and 17, and these verses could not but have been 
connected with ver. 20 if the reference in them had been the same; they 
are, however, separated from it by the greetings in ver. 19. On the other 
hand, they are immediately attached to the apostle’s summons to Timothy 
to come to him zpé yedvoc. It is more than probable that vv. 20 and 21 
stand in a similar relation to each other as do vv. 9 and 10. In the latter, 
Timothy knew that Demas, Crescens, and Titus were with Paul in Rome, 
and so Paul announces that they had left him; in the former, Timothy 
was in the belief that Erastus and Trophimus had accompanied Paul to 
Rome, and so Paul now announces that this was not the case. In this way 
everything stands in a simple, natural connection.—Otto’s explanation, 
too, is unsatisfactory. According to Acts xix. 22, Paul during his stay in 
Ephesus sent Erastus along with Timothy to Macedonia. Otto now 
supposes that both were to make this journey by way of Corinth, and 
there await the apostle. But, afterwards Paul changed the plan of his 
journey ; he himself proceeding to Macedonia without touching at Corinth, 
and sending for Timothy to come thither, while Erastus remained at that 
time in Corinth, to which fact allusion is now made in "Epaoroc éuewvev by 
Kopivto. This, however, is inconceivable. If the case were as Otto thinks, 
Timothy himself could not but know very well that Erastus, with whom 
he had made the journey to Corinth, had been left behind in Corinth. : 
And what purpose was the allusion to serve, since the stay of Erastus in 
Corinth some years before could in no way furnish a reason for his not 
being with Paul in Rome after the lapse of these years ?—Further, if we 
suppose that the epistle was composed during the apostle’s imprisonmenié 
in Rome, which is known to us, the charge given to Timothy in chap. iv. 
13 is very strange. According to Otto, Paul left behind the articles here 
mentioned when he set out from Troas, as is mentioned in Acts xx. 18, 


INTRODUCTION. | 


because they were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, and he intended 
to return into those parts later. But according to Acts xx. 22-25, the 
apostle at that time cherished no such intention; and if those articles 
were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, his companions might have 
taken them on board ship.—Finally, it is worth noting that in the epistle 
no mention whatever is made of Aristarchus, who had accompanied the 
apostle to Rome. Otto tries to explain this by saying that Paul had only 
to mention his actual fellow-laborers in the gospel, and that Aristarchus 
was not one of these, but simply looked after the apostle’s bodily main- 
tenance. This, however, is one of Otto’s many assertions, which are only 
too deficient in actual as well as apparent foundation. The result of 
unbiassed investigation is that the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul in 
Rome, during which he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, is not the 
imprisonment mentioned by Luke, during which he wrote the Epistles to 
the Philippians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon. 


ReMARK.—Otto has attempted, not only to weaken the strength of the argu- 
ments against the composition of the epistle during that imprisonment, but also 
to give some as positive proofs that the epistle could have been written only at that 
time. One such argument is that, if the epistle is to belong to a second imprison- 
ment of the apostle in Rome, the situation of the apostle during it must have 
been the same as during the first imprisonment. He argues that this is altogether 
incredible, since the apostle’s favorable situation during the former had its ground 
only in an dveove quite unusual and produced by peculiar circumstances, an dveoug 
which was much more considerable than that granted to him in Caesarea. The 
latter consisted only in this, that it was permitted to him to be attended by his 
own followers—whether kinsmen or servants; it was not permitted to have per- 
sonal intercourse with his helpers in the apostleship, as was granted to him in 
Rome. This assertion rests, however, on an unjustifiable interpretation of the 
passage in Acts xxiv. 23, where Otto leaves the concluding words: 7 tpooépyeo- 
6a avt@, altogether out of consideration. Certainly the apostle’s eustodia militaris 
in Rome had a mild form; but there is no proof that it may not have been so 
during his second imprisonment, all the less that its occasion and special cireum- 
stances are wholly unknown to us. Otto further asserts that about 63 there 
prevailed at the imperial court, through the influence of Poppaea, a feeling 
favorable to the Jews, that this feeling caused the apostle’s confinement to be 
made more severe after lasting two years, and that this is even clearly indicated 
by Luke in the word akwAtroc, Acts xxviii. 31. But Otto himself makes this 
friendly disposition to the Jews active even in 61: how then is it credible that 
not till 63 had it any influence in aggravating the apostle’s situation? The asser- 
tion is erroneous that Luke’s @xwAbrwe indicates any such thing.—If it were the 
case that Nero was influenced by Poppaea’s favorable inclination to the Jews to 
cast the blame of the fire in 64 on the Christians, it does not follow from this that 
Paul was not set free in the spring of 63, though this favorable disposition of 
the court towards the Jews might explain his condemnation in 64 after a brief 


yp THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


imprisonment.—Wieseler thinks that “the chief judicial process against Paul and 
his por7 aro/oyia before the emperor and his council took place only after the 
two first years of his imprisonment in Rome;” against which Otto maintains that 
by the xpory arodoyia in 2 Tim. iy. 16 we are to understand the process before 
Festus, mentioned in Acts xxv. 6-12. If Otto were right in this assertion, the 
Second Epistle to Timothy must have been written during the first imprisonment 
at Rome. But in order to confirm this assertion, Otto sees himself compelled not 
only to give an unwarrantable interpretation of the expressions in 2 Tim. iv. 16, 
17 (see on this the exposition of the passage), but also to assume that Acts xxiv. 
1-21 mentions only the preliminary process—the nominis delatio, not the actio. 
For the proof of this, Otto appeals to the use of amexpify te 6 ILavAoc instead of 
aredoyyoaro in Acts xxiy. 10. This, however, manifestly proves nothing, since 
Paul himself distinctly called his speech an arodoyia (ver. 10: Td epi éuavrow 
arooyovjar). The whole process before Felix wears so decidedly, from beginning 
to end, the character of the actio, that it cannot in any sense be considered simply 
a nominis delatio. Otto, too, falls into contradiction with himself by saying else- 
where that the nominis delatio took place in Jerusalem when Festus went there 
after entering on his office.—-In defence of his opinion that the epistle was written 
in the beginning of the first Roman imprisonment, Otto appeals further to the 
peculiarities which are already apparent in the first seven verses, and insists that 
these peciliarities can only be explained from the circumstances of that period of 
the apostle’s life. As peculiarities of this nature, Otto mentions: (1) The 
emphasis laid on holding fast by the promise and faith of the fathers, both on the 
part of the apostle and on that of Timothy; (2) The apostle’s allusion to the 
earliest circumstances of Timothy’s life and ministry ; (3) Timothy’s irresolution 
in regard to ministering as a missionary ; and (4) the repeated mention and dis- 
cussion of imprisonment on the apostle’s part. Taking up these points in succes- 
sion, we may note the following :—(1) Not only at the time indicated, but from» 
the very beginning of his apostolic labors, the apostle “had to consider, regarding 
the gospel, whether it was compatible with the faith inherited from the fathers, 
or involved a departure therefrom.” It would be strange if the apostle had first 
been led to such consideration by:the accusations of the Jews before Felix and 
Festus. (2) It is quite natural that the apostle should make less mention of the 
circumstances of Timothy’s previous life and ministry in the First Epistle than in 
the Second. The former is more official in character, the latter more personal. . 
If that allusion to Timothy’s earliest circumstances is to be inexplicable after 
Timothy had already given proof of himself in the apostle’s imprisonment in 
Rome, then it must be quite as inexplicable that Paul, in the beginning of his 
imprisonment, says not a syllable to Timothy to remind him of the fidelity which 
he had shown to the apostle on his third missionary journey. (3) The Second - 
Epistle does, indeed, presuppose that Timothy had slackened in his zeal to labor 
and suffer for the gospel; but this might have happened later quite as much 
as earlier. Besides, the decline of zeal was not to such an extent as Otto in 
exaggeration says, “that he had almost abandoned his office through anxiety 
and timidity.” (4) In the other epistles, written during his imprisonment, the 
apostle makes mention of it not less than in this. There is, however, no reason 
for saying that in this one he designedly explains the significance of his 


imprisonment in a way which suits only the beginning of the imprisonment in 
Rome. 


INTRODUCTION. yA 


From the survey we have made, it is clear that the composition of all 
three epistles does not fall into that period of Paul’s life described in Acts, 
and that there is nothing in the same period to account for their origin. 
In spite of these opposing difficulties, it might be held as not absolutely 
impossible that one or other of them was written at some time during that 
period ; but there are two considerations of special weight against this— 
(1) There is the same difficulty with all three in finding a place in the 
period specified for the epistle, and in each case combinations more or 
less improbable, and of a very ingenious nature, have to be used. (2) 
The very events and circumstances in the life of the apostle which are 
pre-supposed in these epistles must be regarded as omitted in Acts, which 
is not the case to the same extent with any other of the Pauline Epistles. 
And even apart from all this, there are other weighty reasons against 
assigning their composition to that period—reasons contained in the 
structure of the epistles themselves. As to their contents, there runs 
alike through the three Epistles, as before remarked, a polemic against 
certain heretics. These heretics are of quite another kind than those 
with whom Paul has to do in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the 
Romans. They are similar to those against whom he contended in the 
Epistle to the Colossians—heretics, of such a nature as could only have 
arisen at a later time, and whose appearance in the church is indicated as 
something future in Paul’s address to the Ephesian presbyters at Miletus. 
Christianity must have already become an aggressive power, before such 
a mixture of Christian with heathen-Jewish speculation could be formed 
as we find in these heretics——Then as to the form of the epistles, é. e. the 
diction peculiar to them, it has manifestly another coloring than in the 
other Pauline Epistles, so much so that we cannot explain the difference 
from the fact “that these epistles were written to the apostle’s pupils and 
assistants, the others to churches and members of churches” (Otto). It is 
inconceivable that the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus 
should have been written almost at the same time with the First Epistle 
to the Corinthians, in the period between the composition of the Epistle 
to the Galatians and that of the Epistle to the Romans; and it is equally 
inconceivable that the Second Epistle to Timothy should have been 
written at a time so much later than those two with which it stands in 
every way so closely connected. The hypothesis brings together things 
different in kind, and sunders those that are like one another. 


. REMARK.—Otto’s attempt to prove the close relationship between the First 
_ Epistle to Timothy and the First Epistle to the Corinthians—both of which he 


24 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


refers to the same church and assigns to the same period—must be considered 
entirely unsuccessful. The contrasts of the epistles compel Otto himself to take 
some precautions in order to blunt the edge of certain objections to his assertion. 
His precautionary remarks are—(1) That the image of the condition of the. 
Corinthian church, which was in his mind when writing the Epistle to Timothy, 
had become different when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians ; and (2) 
that the apostle “had to write in one fashion to the church, and in another 
fashion to his deputies.” There are, indeed, in the epistles some points of agree- 
ment, which, however, may be satisfactorily explained by their common authorship ; 
in both, attention is directed to heretics, and both refer more specially to the 
inner circumstances of the church than the apostle’s other epistles. Otto has only 
succeeded in making it probable that the heretics in the two epistles were the 
same, He arbitrarily constructs for himself, out of the apostle’s theses in the 
Epistles to the Corinthians, an image of the antitheses of the heretics, atid 
unjustifiably refers to the latter trains of thought which are quite unsuitable. 
Nevertheless, he has not succeeded in proving that the heresy spoken of in the 
Pastoral Epistles, the nature of which may be gathered from the expressions: 
pvbot, yeveadoyia., etc., was also the doctrine of the heretics in Corinth. 


The result of an unbiassed investigation is—(1) That all three epistles 
belong to one and the same period of the apostle’s life, and (2) that this 
period does not fall into that portion of the apostle’s life with which we 
are more closely acquainted through Acts and the other Pauline Epistles. 
Their composition must accordingly belong to a later time in the apostle’s 
life; and this is possible only if Paul was released from the imprisonment 
at Rome mentioned by Luke, and was afterwards a second time imprisoned 
there. 

The narrative in Acts cannot be used to disprove the historical truth of 
such a release and renewed imprisonment on the apostle’s part,! since, so 
far as it is concerned, the apostle’s martyrdom at the close of the impris- 
onment there described is as much, an hypothesis as the release. It 
depends on the notices of the elder Fathers. In this respect, however, we 
1nust not overlook the fact that in general their communications regarding 
the apostle are only scanty. In their writings they are not so much con- 
cerned for historical truth as for exhortation and dogma; their writings 
serve the present, and cast only an occasional glance on the facts of the 
past. Hence we are not surprised that they give but little information 
regarding the events of Paul’s life, and that little only by allusions.—The 
first clear and distinct notice of Paul’s release from the imprisonment 
mentioned by Luke is found in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 22): rére pév (i.e. 


10tto came forward in 1860 as a decided Saint Paul; sa double captivité a Rome, étude 
opponent of this conjecture, and in the same historique, par L. Ruffet. 
year there appeared in its defence the work, 


i. INTRODUCTION. 25 


after the lapse of the two years, Acts xxviii. 30) obv arodoynodpevov adic éxi 
THY TOU Kypvy“aTog dlaKoviay Adyog Exel oTEiAacbar Tov azéoToAov, deiTepov J 
émiBavta TH avTh TéAEL TO Kat’ adrov (2. €. Nero) redewOjvac paptupiw® év © decpoig 
Exouevog tiv mpoc Tipdbeov devtépav értotoAyy ovvtatrer, duov onuaivwy Thy re 
mpotepav avT@ yevouévyv aroAoyiav kai tiv mapanddac Tedeiwow. This testimony 

It has been 
declared invalid, (1) because Eusebius himself does not appeal to reliable 


of Eusebius has, however, not been left unquestioned. 


authorities, but only to tradition (Aéyoc); and (2) because his conviction of 
the accuracy of this tradition rests only on the Second Epistle to Timothy 
itself, and particularly on his explanation of 2 Tim. iv. 16,17. But, on 
the other hand, it is to be observed that the formula Adyoc éyex (for which 
there also occur the expressions: Aéyo¢ katéyer, mapevdjpapuev, ioropeita, 
éyvauev, EuavOavouer, 7) Tapadoore Teptéxer) does not, in the mouth of Eusebius, 
quite mean “as the story goes” (Otto), but is used by him when he wishes 
to quote tradition as such, without intending! to mark it as erroneous. 
Hence his testimony proves this, if nothing more, that in his time the 
opinion prevailed that Paul was released again from that imprisonment. 
Then it is to be noted that Eusebius does indeed explain the quoted 
passage incorrectly, by understanding the words + EbpboOyv ék otéuatoc 
Aéovroc, of the release from the first imprisonment, but that this incorrect 
explanation arose from his conviction agreeing with the tradition, and not 
the tradition from the explanation, as Rudow thinks (in his prize treatise, 
De argumentis  histor., quibus epistolarum pastoral. origo Paulina 
impugnata est, Gottingen 1852): in illam sententiam adductus est interpre- 
tatione falsa . . . verborum éppioGy «.7.A., quae qauum ad Neronem referret, 
putavit, apostolum jam semel saevo Neronis judicio eyasisse.— 
Though it may seem strange that Eusebius quotes no definite testimony 
from an older writer in support of the correctness of the tradition, still 
this proves nothing against it, all the less that he mentions no testimony 
which contradicts it. For the truth of that tradition some earlier docu- 
ments seem also to speak. In the first place, the passage in Clemens 
The Codex Alex. is the only MS. of it 


preserved,’ and its text, as amended by the conjectures of the editor 


Rom., 1 Hpist. ad Corinth. chap. v. 


Junius, runs thus: dca CyAov [6] Maidog trouovgc BpaBeiov [éxecy]ev . . . 


1Jt is clear that Eusebius by this formula 
does not mean to denote simply a vague re- 
port, for he not only directly reeognizes the 
accuracy of the Adyos under discussion, but 
also confirms it by his interpretation. 

2 Translator’s 


Yote—Another ms.. fortu- 


nately unmutilated, was discovered in the 
library of the Holy Sepulchre, at Fanari in 
Constantinople, and was published in 1875 by 
Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae. Later 
still, a Syriac ms., purchased for the Univer 


sity of Cambridge, has been found to contain 


26 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


Kppv& [yevd]uevoc év th avatoAq nai év [rH] dioer, Tov yevvaiov tHe mioTewe avToi 
KAéog éAaBev* Sixaoobvyv didakac bAov Tov Kéopov K[ai éxi] Td Tépua THE dicews 
tov Kai paptrpyoag éxi TOv Hyousévwv, odTwC amnAAayn Tov Kéouov.' If the 
expression: 70 tépua tH¢ dicewc, Means the limits of the west, we can 
only understand it to be Spain, and in that case this passage favors the 
theory that the apostle was released from the first Roman imprisonment. 
The reasons urged against this by Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Epistle 
to the Romans, are not sufficient. Meyer makes appeal to the following 
facts :—(1) That Clement’s words in general bear a strong impress of 
oratorical hyperbole; but this is seen at most in the expression: 6/ov 
tov Kéouov, Which, however, is sufficiently explained by the previous: 
év Th avatoAq k. év 7. dice. (2) That Clement speaks from Paul’s point 
of view; but avarozg and dio are simple geographical designations, 
just like our expressions east and west. (3) That, if Spain were meant, 
the waprupyoac éxi tov youn. Would transport us to the scene of a trial in 
Spain; but that is not the case, since oi #yobwevor (note the defin. article) 
can only be understood as denoting the highest officials of the empire, 
and besides, in Clement’s time it was known generally that Paul had 
suffered martyrdom in Rome. (4) That Clement otherwise would indi- 
cate by the otrwe that Paul’s death took place in Spain; but oitwe does 
nothing but bring together the preceding facts? The meaning is: in this 
way, viz. after he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and come 
to the limits of the west and “borne testimony before those in power”. . .; 
ovtw¢ is used in the very same way here as shortly before in the passage 
about Peter: ovy éva, ovdé dio, adda rieiovac brhveyxev mévouc, Kai ovTw 
Laptuphoac éropevOn eic Tov ddetAduevov Torov THE JdEnc.—That Clement did not 
mean Rome by this expression, is shown by the fact that he was hinself 
in Rome, and would therefore hardly speak of that city as the répua r. 
If Clement 


had not wished to point to some place beyond Rome, he would have been 


dicewc, and also by the very emphatic position of those words. 


content with the expressions previously used, since they would have been 
perfectly sufficient to denote the apostle’s labors in the west, and therefore 
in Rome. Several expositors, however, deny the proposed interpretation 


a translation of Clement’s two epistles.—See 
Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 
I. p. 557. 

1The text, according to Dressel and others, 
runs somewhat differently. See on this point 
Meyer’s Comment. iiber den Brief an die Rimer, 


5th ed. p. 15. Meyer remarks: “Still the 


various readings of the different revisions of 
the ... text make no material difference in 
regard to this question.” 

2Hofmann (D. heil. Schr. Thi. V. p. 8) 
wrongly refers ovtws only to d:a ¢nAov; but 
the wide interval between ottws and da GnAov 


is decisive against this. 


INTRODUCTION. rH 


of the word répua as equivalent to limits. The explanation given by 
Schrader and Hilgenfeld: “the boundary limits,” and that by Matthies: 
“the centre of the west,” are altogether arbitrary. Otto’s explanation seems 
to have more justification. Following Baur and Schenkel, Otto seeks to 
prove, on “ philological grounds which they have not supplied,” that by 
Td Tépua THe Svoewe We are to understand “the goal in the west appointed to 
the apostle.” He wishes, in the secondary use of the word, to maintain 
the original meaning, according to which 70 répua denotes “ the goal-point, 
the goal-pillar, in the hippodrome and the stadium.” He supplies with 7d 
tépua the genitive of the tpéywv, who in this place is Paul, and takes the 
genitive ric dtcew as the genitive of the stadium. But the very last quo- 
tations which Otto brings forward from the classics to support his assertion, 
show his error. In the passage, Eurip. Alc. 646: é7i répy’ jxwv Biov, the 
pronoun is not to be supplied with répya, but with Biov; it does not mean 
“come to his goal of life,” but “come to the goal of his life.” So also 
with the passage in Suppl. 369, where we have: éri répua éudv Kaxdv ixduevoc, 
and not éxi répua éudv xaxov. Accordingly, in the present passage, if the 
third personal pronoun were to be supplied, it should be with dicewe and 
not with répua; but that would be meaningless. But, further, it is 
arbitrary here, where there is no hint of a figure taken from running a 
race, to supply with 7d répua the notion of the apostolic ministry, sepa- 
rating t7c¢ dtcews from its close connection with ro répua, and taking it as 
equivalent to év rq dice; all the more that, when so understood, the words 
are a somewhat superfluous addition. Besides, it is improper to consider 
the Sioewe as the stadium, and then to place the répuza not at the end of it, 
but somewhere in the middle. If répua in the secondary application is to 
retain its original meaning, 70 tépua tH dicewe is either to be explained: 
“the goal to which the diow extends,” or, more naturally : “the goal which 
is reached by passing through the dio.” This may be the ocean which 
bounds the dioic, but quite as well the extreme land of the west. If the 
text is rightly restored by Junius, appeal may also be made to this passage 
for the apostle’s journey to Spain, but certainly not for successful Jabors 
there, which rather appears to be excluded by the use of the simple éA60v. 
Wieseler, however, has his doubts about the correctness of the restoration, 
as he believes that the original text was not kai éi 76 répya x.7.2., but Kai 
to 7d tépua. This he translates: “after he had taught righteousness to 
the whole world, and had appeared before the highest power of the west, and 
had borne witness before the first,” etc. His explanation, however, is 
contrary to the meaning of the word, for répua does sometimes occur— 


28 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


only in connection with éye—in the sense of “the highest power or decision,” 
but it never denotes “the supreme government.” Besides, this conjecture 
and its explanation would designate the supreme imperial government 
simply as that of the west, while its authority extended equally over the 
east. Least of all would Clement, who, according to Wieseler’s own 
expression, “is obviously tuning a panegyric on Paul,” have used any 
If he had understood 7é 
répua in that sense, he would surely have added to the word not simply 
Still less 


can Rudow’s opinion (in the work quoted, p. 7) be justified, that we should 


limited description for that supreme authority. 
THe Svoewc, but—as was the actual fact—r7je avaroAgqe kai tHe dboewe.4 


not read ézi, but oc, and explain it as equivalent to “ paene ad finem imperii 
occidentalis ; ” for on the one hand this gives to é¢ an impossible significa- 
tion, and on the other it attributes to Clement a very commonplace 
thought. 

The second passage is found in the Muratorian Canon, composed about 
A.D. 170. It runs thus: Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro 
scribta sunt. Lucas obtime Theophile comprindit, quia sub praesentia 
ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter 
declarat, sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam_proficiscentis. 
From these words, in themselves unintelligible, this much at least is 
clear, that Paul’s journey to Spain was the subject of tradition in the 
author’s time. Even if, as Wieseler thinks, the word “ omittit” has been 
dropped after proficiscentis, the words do not say that the journey did not 
take place, or that it was doubtful and disputed, but only that Luke did 
not mention it——Otto conjectures that in the author’s time some began, 
for ecclesiastical purposes, to maintain the journey into Spain to be an 
historical fact. This conjecture, as well as the other, that the original 
text of the Canon afterwards received many interpolatory additions, is a 
mere makeshift in order to confirm, against the testimony of the Canon, 
the hypothesis that Paul did not make the journey to Spain.’ 


1 Wieseler’s other opinion is arbitrary, that 
in the words “aprupyoas emt Toy Hyoumevwv” 
the nyovpevor are the principes who composed 
the concilium which the emperor was wont to 
consult in his judgments. 

2Tt is strange that Rudow, in his conjecture 
and its explanation, does not understand 
Spain by répua 7. dve., but Rome (rd répua rt. 
évo., non ad Hispaniam sed ad Romam refer- 
endum puto), which would make the mean- 


ing to be that Paul had come almost to Rome. 


3It will be sufficient here to quote some of 
the conjectures proposed. Otto thinks that 
for sicuti and sed, sic uti and sic et should be 
read. Laurent (Weutest. Studien, p. 109) makes 
the conjecture: sicuti et semota passione 
Petri evidenter declarat et profectione Pauli 
ab Urbe Spaniam proficiscentis. Many have 
tried to make the passage clear by retrans- 
Schott (Der erste Brief 


Petri, p. 353) translates it: xa@as Kai, mapeies 


lating it into Greek. 


MapTupiay mev Thy ToD Ilérpov havepws amrowy- 


INTRODUCTION. 29 


From this passage it follows that tradition preserved the report of a 
journey made to Spain by the apostle, but not of successful /abors there.’ 
This (confirmed by the formula in Eusebius: Adéyoc éyer) agrees with the 
release of the apostle from the imprisonment in Rome, mentioned by 
Luke, since the journey could only have taken place if Paul were again 
at liberty—As nothing can be shown to be decidedly inaccurate in this 
tradition so as to prove its impossibility, or even its improbability,? we 
are justified in using this result in determining the date at which our 
epistles were composed. If we can find no suitable date for any one of 
them in the apostle’s life, down to his first imprisonment in Rome; if, at 
the same time, the composition of all three necessarily belongs to one and 
the same period of the apostle’s life, and the contents of the epistles point 
to a later period,—then we are surely justified in assuming that they were 
written after the imprisonment recorded in Acts, the First Epistle to 
Timothy and the Epistle to Titus in the period between this first and a 
second imprisonment at Rome, and the Second Epistle to Timothy during 
the second. This view—if we take for granted the genuineness of the 
epistles—is the only one tenable after the investigation we have made, and 
hence also more recently it has been accepted by the defenders of their 
authenticity (even by Bleek, who, however, disputes the authenticity of 
the First Epistle to Timothy), with the exception of Matthies, Wieseler, 
and Otto.A—The answer to the question, What date is to be assigned to 
the second imprisonment? depends on the date fixed for the first; and for 
this the year of Festus’ entry on office furnishes a fixed point, since Paul 


paiver, mopetay S€ THY Tod IlavAov amd THs TO- 
Aews eis THY Zmaviavy mopevowevov. Hofmann 
(D. h. Schr. pp. 9 f.): kaOws kat mapeis TO TOV 
Iletpov 1a00s cadha@s Sndot, Tavdov dé Thy 
Topelay €is Thy Lraviav mopevomevov. 


Meyer’s Rémerbrief, 5th ed. pp. 17 f. 


Comp. 


1 When this is observed, it may be explained 

also how Innocent 1. (a.p. 416) could write: 

’ manifestum in omnem Italiam, Gallias, His- 

panias, Africam atque Siciliam ... nullum 

instituisse ecclesias, nisi eas, quas venera- 

bilis ap. Petrus aut ejus successores con- 
stituerint sacerdotes. 

2 The words of Origen in Euseb. ili. 1: ri det 
mept IlavAov Ae€yerw amd ‘lepovoadnm Mexpl TOU 
*TAAvpiKod memAnpwKOTos TO eEvayyeALov TOD 
_ Xptorod Kai totepov ev TH ‘Puy emt Nepwvos 


wenaptupnKoTos, do not exclude the journey te 


Spain (against Meyer), but any apostolic 
labors there. On the whole, however, too 
much should not be inferred from these brief 
summaries, for otherwise it might be con- 
cluded from these words that Paul had 
preached only from Jerusalem to Illyria, and 
not in Rome.—It is of still less importance 
that'there is no mention of any release of the 
apostle in the Hist. apostolica of pseudo-Ab- 
dias. 

3 Kolbe, too (in a review of Hofmann’s com- 
mentary, Zeitschr. f. die luth. Theol. u. K. 1875, 
No. 3), will acknowledge no second imprison- 
ment of the apostle, which he holds to be an 
unnecessary hypothesis, “ not necessary after 
Wieseler in so natural a manner (!) had 
assigned to the Pastoral Epistles their proper 


place in the apostle’s life.” 


30 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 


arrived at Rome in the spring of the following year—If, with Anger, 
Wieseler, Hofmann, we suppose that Festus entered on office in the year 
60, then Paul was released from the first imprisonment in 63, and the 
second imprisonment took place either after or before the burning of Rome 
and the consequent persecution of the Christians (in the summer of 64). 
The first supposition seems to be opposed by the fact that in the Pastoral 
Epistles there is not the slightest allusion to this persecution, while the 
second gives, from the spring of 63 to the summer of 64, too short time 
for the events to which the Pastoral Epistles bear witness. It is true that 
the objection to the first supposition may be weakened by dating the 
apostle’s martyrdom as late as possible, say in 67 or 68. For this we have 
the support of the old tradition; but on the one hand the tradition is very 
uncertain,’ and on the other we would have the apostle laboring for so 
many years after his first imprisonment, that it would be inexplicable 
why not a scrap of information has been preserved regarding it. The 
objection to the second supposition is of less importance, for, even if the 
time allowed be short, it is not too short. The events would be placed in 
the following order :—In the spring of 63, Paul leaves Rome; he lands at 
Crete, where he spends a short time only, and, leaving Titus behind, 
proceeds to Ephesus, where he meets Timothy. Soon after he crosses to 
Macedonia, and from there writes the Epistle to Timothy; then somewhat 
later, after resolving to pass the winter in Nicopolis in Epirus, he writes 
the Epistle to Titus. 
way of Troas, and then proceeds, without halting there, by Miletus, where 


Towards the end of winter he returns to Ephesus by 


he leaves Trophimus behind sick, and by Corinth, where Erastus does not 
join him as he wished, to Spain; and from there (perhaps as a prisoner) 
to Rome. In this way he might still arrive at Rome some time before the 
burning, and undergo his first trial, after which he wrote the Second 
Epistle to Timothy.? Shortly before the burning, or in the persecution 


1In Jerome (Catal. ec. 15) it runs: Decimo short for the journey to Spain and Rome, 


quarto Neronis anno eodem die quo Petrus 
Romae pro Christo capite truncatus sepul- 
tusque est in via Ostiensi. 

2Against this reckoning, Otto raises two 
points in particular—(1) the shortness of the 
period indicated, and (2) the apostle’s sum- 
mons in 2 Tim. iv. 9 and 21. As to the first 
point, Otto grants that about five months 
might be sufficient for the journeys from 
Rome to Nicopolis, but thinks that the time 
from March to the middle of July 64 is too 


since the apostle “must have preached in 
Spain, been taken prisoner, undergone a pro- 
cess before the provincial court, and again 
made appeal to Caesar.” But these presup- 
positions are not to be considered as at all 
necessary, since the actual course of events 
As to the 


second point, Otto maintains that Timothy 


may have been quite different. 


could get from Ephesus to Rome in one 
month, and that if the same time is to be 
given for forwarding the Epistle, Paul could 


INTRODUCTION. 31 


occasioned by it, the apostle suffered martyrdom, and by the sword, 
according to the testimony of tradition. Wiesinger grants, indeed, that 
in this view the favorable treatment of the imprisoned apostle is more 
natural than by supposing that he was imprisoned after the burning ; but 
still he thinks that he cannot agree to it. His chief grounds against it 
are—(1) that the Second Epistle to Timothy is brought too close to the 
first ; (2) that the apostle, according to 1 Tim. ii. 14 ff., did not stay so 
short a time in Ephesus; (8) that it is inconceivable how the Asiatics (2 
Tim. i. 15-18) should be still in Rome during the time of the apostle’s 
imprisonment, and how Timothy had already been informed of their 
conduct. But, on the other hand, it is to be observed (1) that there is no 
hint of the Second Epistle being written a long time after the First, the 
agreement between them rather testifying against this; (2) that from 1 
Tim. iii. 14 ff. no conclusion can be drawn of a long stay made by the 
apostle in Ephesus; (8) that the verb azeorpdgycav in 2 Tim. i. 15 does not 
imply the presence of the Asiatics in Rome. Ruffet agrees in the repre- 
sentation here given, but remarks: Huther fait mourir Paul en 64, pendant 
la grande persécution. II est difficile, dans ce cas, d’expliquer le procés de 
Paul. He gives 66 as the year of the apostle’s death. Against him it 
must be maintained that there is no ground for assuming that the process 
was carried out formally, and that it is arbitrary to assign 66 as the year 
of the apostle’s death. 


REMARK.—Meyer (Apgesch. 3d ed. 1861, Introd. sect. 4) has sought on two 
grounds to prove, against Wieseler, that the retirement of Felix from office did 
not take place in the year 60, but in 61. His first ground is, that it follows from 
Josephus, Vita, ? 3, that in the year 63 Josephus went to Rome in order to obtain 
the release of some priests who had been imprisoned by Felix, and sent thither. 
Now, if Felix retired from office in 60, Josephus would have put off his journey 
too long. But, on the other hand, before undertaking this journey, Josephus had 
to await the result of the complaint (Antig. xx. 8, 10) made to the emperor against 
Felix by the Jews ; and when Felix was acquitted, it could only appear to Josephus 
to be unfavorable to his purpose. He would hardly, therefore, undertake his 
journey immediately after he had received news of it. Meyer’s second ground 
is, that from Josephus, Antig. xx. 8.11, it is clear that Poppaea was already Nero’s 
wife at the time when Festus entered on office, and she became so in May 62. But 
the passage in question does not at all prove that. What Josephus says is this. 


not write in the beginning of July, but only the letter by the shortest route, and supposed 
in the middle or end of August, that Timothy that Timothy would and could choose the 
was to make haste to come to him before shortest route for his journey. Besides, it is 
winter! But even this assertion has only an to be observed that taxéws and mpd xerpavos 
apparent justification, since it rests on the are not immediately connected with one 
‘ubproved presupposition that Paul forwarded —_ another. 


32 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


About the time when a great impostor was destroyed with his followers by the 
troops which Festus, on entering office, sent against him, Agrippa built in Jeru- 
salem the great house from which he could see into the temple. The Jews built 
a wall to prevent his looking into the temple, and, after vainly negotiating on the 
matter with Festus, they brought the case before Nero by means of ambassadors. 
Nero gave them a favorable answer, t7 yvvaixi Ilorryia ixép tov "Iovdaiwy den- 
Geion xapilouevoc. Josephus does not say how much time was taken up in building 
the house, in erecting the wall, in negotiating with Festus, in sending the ambas- 
sadors, in awaiting Nero’s answer ; but it is more than probable that some years 
must have passed while these things were going on. Besides, it is least question 
able whether the use of yvv7 implies that Poppaea was then Nero’s wife—If 
Meyers reckoning were still to be correct, the apostle’s release would have taken 
place shortly before the fire.» The fact that there is no allusion to Nero’s perse- 
cution in the epistles would have to be explained in this way, that the apostle was 
already made acquainted with it when he was with Timothy in Ephesus.—Dr. H. 
Lehmann (Chronologische Bestimmuny der in der Apgesch. Kap. 13-28, erzéhlien 
Begebenheiten, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, No. 2, pp. 312-819) gives the date of 
Festus’ entry on oflice quite differently from Wieseler and Meyer. According to 
Lehmann’s investigation, the year 58 is both the earliest and the latest possible 
date for the recall of Felix. He believes that Feiix was not recalled after the 
year 58, because Felix was acquitted from the charge raised against him by the 
Jews through the intercession of his brother Pallas, who, according to the express 
statement of Josephus, was then in high favor with Nero. But Pallas was in favor 
with Nero only till 59; his influence was very closely connected with that of 
Nero’s mother, Agrippina, so that her downfall and murder in 59 would necessa- 
rily deprive Pallas of Nero’s favor, just as some years later (in 62) he was 
poisoned by Nero, who coveted his treasures—Lehmann is of opinion also that 
Felix was not recalled before 58, because the revolt of the Egyptians (Acts xxi. 
38) cannot have taken place before 56.—According to this, Paul would therefore 
be at liberty again in the spring of 61, which certainly would be a result very 
favorable to dating the composition of the Pastoral Epistlés before Nero’s 
persecution. 


As to the place of composition, Pauk wrote the First Epistle to Timothy 
after his departure from Ephesus, probably in Macedonia, or at least in 
the neighborhood ot that country, while Timothy was in Ephesus. In 
accordance with this, the subscription in Auct. Synops. runs: ad paxedoviac, 
while in the Coptic and Erpenian versions Athens is set down quite arbi- 
trarily as the place of composition. In several mss., on the other hand, 
we find the subscription which has passed into the Received Text: a7d 
Aaodixeiac, rig éott pytpbrodic &pvyiac tHe Taxatiavgc; in Cod. A simply azd 
Aaodixeiac. This place is assigned to it also in the Peschito, the Aethiopic 
version, in Oecumenius, Theophylact, -ete. The addition ry¢ Maxariavze 
points to a division which arose in the fourth century. The opinion that 
the epistle was written in Laodicea is probably grounded on the fact that 
this epistle was regarded as identical with the érorod# éx Aaodixetag men- 


INTRODUCTION. 33 


tioned in Col. iv. 16. Theophylact says: rig dé qv % éx Aaodixeiag; 4 mpog 
Tyud0eov mpary, abty yap ék Aaoducevag éypaon. 

The place in which the Epistle to Titus was written can only be so far 
determined, that it was on the apostle’s journey from Crete to Nicopolis. 
The subscription in the Received Text runs: po¢ Titov ri¢ Kpytov exxan- 
siac xpatov émiokorov xeipotovyfévta éypagn and NexordéAewg tio Makedoviac. 
This has, however, arisen out of a misconception of chap. iii. 12, where 
the word éxez proves that Paul, at the time of composing the epistle, was 
not yet in Nicopolis.—If the epistle was written on the apostle’s journey, 
between the first and second imprisonment at Rome, we cannot, with 
Guericke, assume that it was composed in Ephesus; for if Paul had 
already in Ephesus the intention of passing the winter at Nicopolis, he 
could not, after leaving Ephesus and arriving in Macedonia, write to 
Timothy that he thought of coming again to him soon, 1 Tim. iil. 14. The 
Epistle to Titus can therefore have been written only after the First 
Epistle to Timothy. While composing the latter, he was, indeed, thinking 
of a speedy return to Ephesus, but he considered it possible then that his 
return might be delayed (1 Tim. iii. 15). This actually took place when 
he resolved to pass the winter at Nicopolis, after which resolution he 
wrote to Titus. 

As to the Second Epistle to Timothy, there can be no doubt that it was 
written in Rome, as many subscriptions say. Only Bottger (Beitrage, etc., 
part 2) supposes that Paul wrote it in his imprisonment at Caesarea— 
which, however, rests on the utterly incorrect presupposition that Paul 
was only five days a prisoner in Rome. 


SECTION 4.THE HERETICS IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


All three epistles contain warnings against heretics. These are described 
as follows : 

First Epistle to Timothy —They have left the path of faith and of a good 
conscience (i. 5: dv (é.e. kabapag Kapdiag Kat ovverdgoewc ayadig Kal TiotTews 
avuroxpitov) aotoxhoartec; 1.19: qv (i.e, ayadiy ovveidnow) twec arwoduevor rept 
tiv miotww évavdynoav; Vi. 21: rept tiv Tiorw jotéynoav). They are estranged 
from the truth (vi. 5: droorepypévor tie aAqfeiac), and do not abide by the 
sound doctrine of the gospel (vi. 8). Morally corrupt (vi. 5: JegOappévoe 
zov vowv), they have an evil conscience (iv. 3: kexavtypiacpévor thy idiav 
cwveidnow). Beclouded with self-conceit (vi. 4: tetigeray), they boast of a 
special knowledge (vi. 20: re pevdovipov yrécewc), Which they seek to spread 


"by teaching (i. 3: érepodidackareir). Their doctrine is a meaningless, empty, 
3 


34 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


profane babble (i. 6: parawdoyia; vi. 20; BéByAor Kevogovia), a doctrine of 
the devil (iv. 2: didackatia: daoviov). Its contents are made up of pro- 
fane and silly myths (i. 4, iv. 7: BéBnAot kai ypaddere pvbor) and genealogies 
(i. 4: yeveadoyiat atépavror), which only furnish points of controversy and 
arouse contests of words (i. 4, vi. 4), in which they take a special delight 
(vi. 4: voodv rept Cythoe Kai Aoyouaxiac). Without knowing the meaning 
of the law, they wish to be teachers of it (i. 7: GéAovte¢ eivar vouodiddcKator), 
and add to it arbitrary commands forbidding marriage and the enjoyment 
of many kinds of food (iv. 3; KkwAbovrec yaueiv, aréxeobar Bpwpatwv); by their 
ascetic life they seek to gain the reputation of piety in order to make 
worldly gain by it (vi. 5? vouitovrec, Toptouov elvar THY evoé Berar). 

The Epistle to Titus—The heretics (i. 9: of avriAéyovtec) belong especially 
to Judaism (i. 10: wadora of éx xepitouqc). While boasting of their special 
knowledge of God, they lead a godless life (i. 16), condemned by their 
own conscience (iii. 11: .avtoxatdxpiroc). What they bring forward are 
Jewish myths (i. 14: rposéyovree "Iovdaixoic pibowc), genealogies, points of 
controversy about the law (ili. 9), and mere commands of men (i. 14: 
évtohai avdparuv arootpedopévov aAnbecav). They are idle babblers (i. 10: 
pataédoyor), Who with their shameful doctrine (i. 11: diddoxovrec & pi dei) 
seduce hearts (i. 10: gpevardrar), cause divisions in the church (iii. 10: 
aipetixot avOpwro), and draw whole families into destruction (i. 11: éAove 
oixove avarpérover); and all this—for the sake of shameful gain (i. 11: 
aiaxpov Képdove yapw). 

Second Epistle to Timothy.—Here, just as in the First Epistle, the here- 
tics are denoted as people who have fallen away from the faith, who are 
striving against the truth (ii. 18: srepi ray aAgbevay jordxnoar ; il. 8: avbioravtrat 
TH dAnSeia . . . adbKywor epi Tv Tiotw; ii. 25: ot avridvatiBépevor), who are 
morally corrupt (ili. 8: av@pwro karepBapnévor Tov voov; ili, 13; rovypoi 
av0pwror), Who are in the snare of the devil (ii. 25), so that there already 
exist among them that godlessness and hypocrisy which, the Spirit 
declares, will characterize mankind in the last days. They seek to extend 
their doctrine, which is nothing but an unholy babble of empty myths, 
and contains nothing but points of controversy ; and this they do by 
sneaking into houses, and by knowing especially how to befool women , 
(iii. 6), just like the Egyptian sorcerers who were opposed to the truth 
(iii. 8)—Contrary to the truth, they teach that the resurrection has 
already taken place (ii. 18: Aéyovrec trav avdoracw 7bn yeyovévat). 

Have the Pastoral Epistles to do with one or with several different 
classes of heretics? Credner (Hinleitung in d. N. T.) assumes four differ- 


INTRODUCTION, 30 


ent classes. He takes the heretics of the Epistle to Titus to be non- 
Christians, azd those of the two Epistles to Timothy to be apostatized 
Christians, while he divides the former—in consequence of the paicora, 
chap. i. 10.—into Jews, more precisely Essenes, and into Gentiles who are 
not further described, the /atter into heretics of the present and heretics of 
the future (1 Tim. iv. 1 ff.; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff.) —These distinctions are, how- 
ever, not justifiable, for the expression oi é« mepitouqe does not necessarily 
denote Jews who are not Christians (comp. Acts xi. 2; Gal. ii. 12). 
Further, 4/c7a does not establish a difference in regard to the heretics, 
but only indicates that some were added who were not é mepirouje. 
Lastly, in 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. and 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff. the future is certainly spoken 
of; but there is no hint in either of the passages that a heresy would 
appear different from the present one.—Thiersch (Versuch zur Herstellung, 
etc., pp. 236 f. and 273 f.) divides the heretics into three groups—(1) Juda- 
ists, 7. e. Judaizing teachers of the law to whom there still clung the spirit 
of Pharisaism ; (2) some spiritualistic Gnostics who had suffered ship- 
wreck in the faith; (8) impostors. He supposes that the first are men- 
tioned in the Epistle to Titus and in some passages of the First Epistle to 
- Timothy, the second in the First and Second Epistles to Timothy, the last 
in 2 Tim. iii. But apostasy from the faith is charged not only against 
those mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 19, but also against those in 1 Tim. i. 3 ff, 
and in the Second Epistle to Timothy the same characteristics are attri- 
buted to the heretics as in the Epistle to Titus; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 23 and 
Tit. iii. 9. As to the impostors, they are not at all distinguished from the 
other heretics as a special class—Wiesinger confesses, indeed, that the 
errors placed before us in the three epistles are substantially the same; but 
he thinks that on the one hand “more general errors” are to be distin- 
guished from those of individuals, and on the other hand phenomena of 
the present from those which are designated as future. Hofmann’s view 
is allied to this. He thinks also that those against whom Paul had a 
special polemic (Tit. i. 9, 10, iii. 9; 1. Timeis3 ff., etc.) are distinct from 
those to whom Hymenaeus and Philetus belonged (2 Tim. ii. 17), and 
from those mentioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 ff.; and further, that those charac- 
terized in 1 Tim. iv. 1-4 are to be regarded as people of the future, and 
not of the present. Against this, however, it is to be maintained that 
such a distinction of different classes is not marked in any way by the 
apostle, and that the men of the future mentioned by him are character- 
ized in substantially the same way as the men of the present against whom 
he directs his polemic. Mangold (Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe) rightly 


36 4 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


maintains that the polemic of the Pastoral Epistles is not directed against 
different forms of heresy, but against one and the same heresy; but he 
agrees with Credner in thinking that the heretics mentioned in the Epis- 
tle to Titus stood quite outside of the Christian church, since it is not said 
of them that they had fallen away from the faith. But against this it is 
to be observed that the polemic in the N. T. is everywhere directed only 
against those who, as members of the church, sought to disturb the true 
faith, and not against non-Christians who assailed the Christian faith from 
without! It is arbitrary also to distinguish the aipetikoi mentioned in 
chap. iii. 10 as corrupted Christians from those named in chap. i. 10 as 
non-Christians. *, 

The second question is, Of what nature was the heretical tendency 
against which the Pastoral Epistles contend? The views on this point 
differ widely from one another. The heretics have been held to be—(1) 
Gnostics, either “forerunners of the Gnostics of the second century ” (so 
most expositors), or “Cerinthians” (Mayerhoff in his work, der Brief an 
die Colosser, 1838; Neander in the first edition of his apostol. Zeitalter), or 
Gnostics of the second century, in particular Marcionites (Baur); (2) Cab- 
balists (Grotius, Baumgarten) ; (8) Pharisaic Judaists (Chrysostom, Jerome, 
partly also Thiersch); (4) Hssenes (Michaelis, Heinrichs, Wegscheider, 
Mangold, partly also Credner), or Therapeutae (Ritschl); and lastly, (6) 
Jewish Christians. These last either had a preference for allegorical inter- 
pretations of the Jewish genealogies (pedigrees), which in itself was inno- 


cent and not delusive, but which might easily lead to apostasy from the faith 


10tto decides quite differently by roundly 
calling the heretics Jews, and remarking: “1 
have found no passage in the two epistles, 
not even in a/i the Pauline Epistles, which 
compelled me to suppose that the heretics 
But should 
not this assertion be at once refuted by the 
fact that Paul, when speaking of non-Chris- 


were members of the church.” 


tians, always denotes them as such, Gentiles 
as Gentiles, Jews as Jews; whereas of the 
heretics, against whom he contends, he no- 
where says that they stand outside of the 
And would not both his 
polemic and his warnings have quite another 


Christian church ? 


character if the hereties did not belong ex- 
ternally to the church?—Otto grants that 
many members of the church had been led 
astray by those non-Christian heretics; but 


would not those betrayed have sought to 
spread their opinions among their fellow- 
members, and thus become false teachers 
themselves? Besides, Otto can support his 
opinion only by an artificial interpretation of 
the single passages in question, as is the case 


-among others with 1 Tim. i. 3 (see the expo 


sition of the passage) and with 2 Cor. xi. 1 
23. 1 Cor. iii. 15 along causes him some 
scruples; but he overcomes them by refer- 
ring the pronoun avrds to 0 denéAcos, altogether 
omitting to observe that Paul in this passage 
is not thinking of heretics at all—Whether 
the tives in Acts xv. 1 were also Jews—and 


‘not Christians—Otto does not say ; if he were 


consistent in his opinions, he would be bound 
to maintain the former. 


INTRODUCTION, 37 


(Wiesinger, who, however, remarks that in some are found the germs of 
the later gnosis), or they were busying themselves with investigations 
regarding the legal and historical contents of the Thora, to which they 
ascribed a special importance for the religious life (Hofmann). The second 
and third views have already received a sufficient refutation. The words: 
Hédovtec eivar vouodidacKkaio (1 Tim. i. 7), are the only argument in favor of 
the opinion that these opponents resembled those against whom Paul 
contended in the Epistle to the Galatians and in the first part of the Epis- 
tle to the Romans. From 1 Tim. iv. 3, Tit.i. 14, it is clear that their zeal 
for the law did not at all agree with the pharisaically-inclined Jewish-Chris- 
tians, as they did not maintain the necessity for circumcision —Cabbalists 
they cannot be called, although there existed earlier among the orthodox 
Jews many elements from which was developed the cabbalistic system 
afterwards imprinted on the books of Jezira and Sohar; these were secret 
doctrines, and it cannot be proved that these heretics had the same views. 
For that matter, there are even some points here, such as forbidding to 
marry, the spiritualistic doctrine of the resurrection, which are foreign to 
Cabbala. There is only one kindred point in the phenomena of the two: 
they both consisted in combination of revealed religion with speculation 
originally heathen. 

The view that the heretics were Essenes has found in Mangold a de- 
fender both thoroughgoing and acute; but he has been able to prove the 
identity of the two only by a somewhat bold assertion. Proceeding from 
the opinion “ that Essenism was only an attempt to carry out practically 
the Alexandrine-Jewish philosophy in the definite arrangements of a 
sect,” he deduces from this the unjustifiable canon: “If, therefore, any 
trait in the picture of the heretics should find a direct parallel, though 
only in such a passage of Philo as gives quite general characteristics of 
the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, we ought not to hesitate in explain- 
ing this trait to be Essenic, provided only it does not stand in contradic- 
tion with the definite information given by Philo and Josephus regarding 
this sect.”—Mangold tries to trace back to Essenism not only the yeveadoyiaz, 
but also the other traits in the picture of the heretics, especially the pifo:, 
the Cyrfoec, the yraou pevddveuoc, the asceticism, the doctrine of the resur- 
rection, the view of the person and work of Christ, not indeed expressed, 
but indicated, the greed, the hypocrisy, the comparison with the Egyptian 
sorcerers, etc. But if he had not the aid of the canon quoted, and of an 
interpretation sometimes very forced, the result would simply be this, 
that in the heretics of the epistles there existed some traits which belonged 


te) THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


also to Essenism. On the other hand, the heretics had many peculiarities 
not found among the Essenes, and the Essenes again had distinct char- 
acteristics of which there is no mention here (comp. Uhlhorn’s criticism 
of Mangold’s book in the Gott. gel. Anz. 1857, No. 179)—The fact that 
Mangold could only justify his assertion that the heretics were Essenes by 
identifying the general Jewish-Alexandrine speculation with Philonism 
and Essenism, is a sufficient proof that his assertion has no firm and sure 
ground.—Against Ritschl’s view that the heretics were Therapeutae, Uhl- 
horn’s remarks (in the criticism quoted) are sufficient: “ They have no ~ 
hesitation in assuming a quite close connection with the Jewish-Alexan- 
drine philosphy, nor would they make any difficulty of importing into it 
the principles of Philo. But then new difficulties appear. If it is already 
hazardous to imagine Essenes in Ephesus and Crete, it might become 
much harder tosuppose that there were Therapeutae in those regions. Their 
whole nature is so thoroughly Egyptian, that we can hardly venture on 
the hypothesis of the sect being transplanted and extended into Asia 
Minor and Crete. Yet that would be the smallest difficulty. The main 
point is that the picture of the heretics applies to the Therapeutae much 
tess than to the Essenes ; not only because the most striking characteristics 
of the Therapeutae are wanting, but also because there are features which 
do not suit the Therapeutae at all. Thus, e.g., the busy activity men- 
tioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 stands in glaring contrast with their habits of con- 
templation.” 

The view which is by far the most prevalent is, that the heresy was 
Gnosticism, either “a rough elementary form of gnosis,” or one of the 
cultivated systems. Baur, as is well known, declares himself for the 
latter with great decision. His judgment (Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. 
Paulus, 1835, p. 10) runs thus: “We have before us in the heretics of the 
Pastoral Epistles the Gnostics of the. second century, especially the 
Marcionites.” For the Marcionitism Baur appeals—(1) to the Antinom- 
ianism denoted in 1 Tim. i. 6-11; (2) to the ascetic aréyeofa Bpwuaror, 
1 Tim. iv. 8, which was founded on a certain opposition and dislike to 
God’s creation—as to something unclean, and therefore on a decidedly 
dualistic view of the universe (such as Marcion in particular held); (3) to 
the doctrine of the resurrection, mentioned in 2 Tim. ii. 18; (4) to the 
express mention of the Marcionite antithesis, 1 Tim. vi. 20.—Of these 
reasons we must at once strike out thé first and the last, as resting on an 
arbitrary and quite unjustifiable interpretation. As to the second, the 
opposition made to the asceticism of the heretics in Tit. i. 15 and 1 Tim. 


INTRODUCTION. 39 


iv. 8,4, by no means points to a decided form of dualism; and with 
regard to the third ground, it is to be observed that the doctrine of the 
resurrection had no more connection with Gnosticism than with other 
speculative systems.—For the Gnosticism of the heretics, Baur produces 
the following grounds -—(1) The myths and genealogies by which the 
Valentinian series of aeons and the whole fantastic history of the pleroma 
were denoted. This, he says, is apparent from the adjective ypaddyc, 
which was chosen because the Sophia-Achamoth was. denoted as an old 
mother. (2) The emphasis laid in the epistles on the universality of the 
divine grace, by which is expressed the opposition to the Gnostic distinc- 
tion between pneumatic and other men. But even these grounds furnish 
no proof that the heresy belonged to the second century, for series of 
emanations and particularism were not phenomena of cultivated Gnosti- 
cism alone. The interpretation of the word ypaédyc¢, however, certainly 
needs no serious refutation. Baur further declares that even the author of 
the epistles was infected with Marcionitism, as appears especially from the 
opposition in which the av6pwrxo¢ of 1 Tim. ii. 5 stands to épavepaby év capi in 
1 Tim. iii. 16, also from the passage in 1 Tim. iii. 16, where two sets of clauses 
are opposed, the one more Gnostic, the other more anti-Gnostic; lastly, from 
the use of doxologies that have a Gnostic sound. But apart altogether from 
single pieces of arbitrary conjecture, of which Baur is guilty in his proof, 
how curious in itself the opinion is, that the assailant of Marcionitism 
should himself have been half a Marcionite, without having any suspicion 
of his self-contradiction! In his work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, 
1845, Baur brought forward yet another new and peculiar proof of his 
assertion that the Gnosticism of the heretics belonged to the second 
century. He finds it in the express statement of Hegesippus (Eusebius, 
Hi. E. iii. 32), that the pevddveyoc yvoow did not appear openly till there 
were none of the apostolic circle left. From this Baur draws two infer- 
ences—(1) that Gnosticism belonged only to the post-apostolic age; and (2) 
that the author of the Pastoral Epistles borrowed the expression 7 
pevdaveuoc yvoow from Hegesippus. But against the first inference it is to 
be noted that in this passage it is not only not denied, but it is even 
expressly stated that there had existed earlier such as “ corrupt the sound 
rule of wholesome preaching,” and that it is simply remarked that the 
érepodiddoxaroc ventured only after the death of the apostles to preach their 
heresy quite openly and freely. Against the second inference we must 
maintain that the passage in Eusebius (as Thiersch in his Versuch zur Her- 
_ stellung, etc., pp. 301 ff., and following him Wiesinger and Mangold, have 


40 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


proved) is not a simple quotation from Hegesippus, but that the thought 
only was expressed by Hegesippus, while its elaboration and form are 
due to Eusebius; and that “although the Ebionite Hegesippus would 
hardly have used the Pastoral Epistles for expressing his Own views, yet 
there is no reason why these expressions in Eusebius should not be traced 
back to the Pastoral Epistles as their source” (comp. Mangold, pp. 108- 
112). Thus the theory that the heretics in question were Marcionites, or 
other Gnosties of the second century, has no real foundation ; for which 
reason, as Mangold says, “all exegetes and writers on Introduction who 
have studied the question are unanimous against Baur’s view ” (Mangold, 
p- 14).—Quite as little support has been given also to the theory that the 
heretics were Cerinthians ; and rightly so, since it cannot be proved that 
they held the doctrine of Cerinthus regarding the Demiurge, or his 
Docetism or the Chiliasm ascribed to him by Caius and Dionysius.—The 
answer to the question whether Paul’s opponents were Gnostics (so far, of 
course, only followers of a gnosis still undeveloped) or not, depends to a 
large extent, if not wholly, on the meaning to be given to yeveadoyias. 
Trenaeus and Tertullian, whom many later expositors have followed, 
understood by it, “Gnostic series of emanations.” In more recent times 
an attempt has been made to maintain that we are to understand by it 
Diihne (Stud. wu. Krit. 1833, No. 4), supported by Man- 
gold and Otto, makes it more definite, and says that by it are meant the 


actual genealogies. 


genealogies of the Pentateuch, along with its historical sections, the 
former of which Philo interprets in his rpéro rye puy7jc. But there is not 
the slightest indication in the Pastoral Epistles that the heretics here 
mentioned made any such interpretation themselves. Wiesinger has let 
this more definite statement drop, and explains the yeveadoyiac to be simply 
Jewish genealogies. Hofmann, on the contrary, going back again to Philo, 
considers them to be not genealogies proper, but “the whole historical 
contents of the Thora.”? Both these expositors do. not wish to regard 
Paul’s opponents here as heretics in the proper sense. Wiesinger, as he 


developes this point, contradicts himself. For, when he grants that they 


11f Hegesippus did use the expression 7 
Wevdavupmos yvaots, it is in any case more pro- 
bable that he should have borrowed it from 
the First Epistle to Timothy, than that the 
author of the epistle should have taken it 
from Hegesippus. 

2This explanation Hofmann justifies by re- 
ferring to Philo’s division of the historical 


contents of the Thora into two parts: ro epi 
TS TOU Ko pov yeveoews and Td yeveadoyiKov. 
But though Philo uses the name 70 yevead- 
oyixov for the part after the history of the 
creation, because it begins with a genealogy, 
it does not follow, as a matter of fact, that the 
single historical events are designated by the 
word yeveadoyiat. 


INTRODUCTION. 4} 


cultivated an arbitrary asceticism,—that they strove after a higher holi- 
ness as well as a higher knowledge than the gospel presents, and that they 
sought to attain this by an allegorical interpretation of the genealogies,! 
—he is manifestly describing them as heretics in the proper sense of the 
term. Hofmann does not indeed fall into this contradiction, but with his 
view it remains wholly unexplained how they could give to the study of 
the historical contents of the Thora a special importance for the religious 
life, if they still did not seek to get from it knowledge transcending the 
gospel. The following points are against both these explanations :—(1) 
The sentence of condemnation pronounced in the epistles is so sharp, 
that it points to something quite different from mere unprofitable specu- 
lation. Although Paul, as these argue, calls their reasonings paraioAoyia 
and xevogwvia, he describes this empty babble of theirs not merely as a 
useless, foolish, old woman’s chatter, but also as something unholy, 2. e. 
profane (é87A0c, comp. Heb. xii. 16), and the reasoners as those who, 
fallen away from the faith, contradict the truth, and are morally corrupt 
in thought. (2) Paul defines the yeveadaoyiac more precisely by the adjec- 
tive azépavta, which gives, not, as it has been wrongly explained, the 
nature of the investigations regarding the yeveadoyia: (as those “ which spin 
on ad infinitum,” Wiesinger; or “the end of which is never reached,” 
Hofmann), but the nature of the yeveadoyia themselves. Since neither the 
Jewish genealogies nor the facts given in the Thora are unlimited, we can 
hardly understand the yeveadtoyiac to be anything else than “ Gnostic series 
of emanations,” which have no necessary termination in themselves, and 
can therefore be regarded as unlimited.—Besides the expression yeveaioyiat 
arépavro, there are other features in the apostle’s polemic pointing to the 
Gnostic tendencies of his adversaries here, who boasted of a special know- 
ledge, called by Paul yraore pevddveuoc ; still their Gnosticism is quite dis- 
tinct from Gnosticism proper, ¢.e. from the Gnosticism which spread so 
widely in the church in the second century. The soil of the latter was 
Gentile Christianity; the soil of the former was Judaism, or Jewish 
Christianity mingled with Gentile speculation. An appeal to the Mosaic 
law was quite out of place in Gnosticism proper, but these heretics wished to 
be vouodiddcxato. The asceticism of the Gnostics was based on dualism; the 
ascetic precepts of these heretics proceeded from the distinction—con- 
tained also in the law of Moses—between clean and unclean; and although 


1 Wiesinger has not observed that allegor- knowledge obtained in other ways makes 
ical interpretation is not to be regarded as use of allegorical interpretation for its own 
. the source nf any special knowledge, but that confirmation. 


42 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


they inconsistently spiritualized the contrast between spirit and matter, 
there is nothing to show that they adopted dualism proper, though we 
may take it for granted that they were so inclined. Gnosticism distin- 
guishes between the Demiurge and the highest God—a distinction not 
known to these heretics. Finally, while Gnosticism is substantially 
Docetie in its view of the Redeemer’s person, it is nowhere said that these 
heretics were Docetic; it rather appears on the whole as if the idea of 
redemption had not with them the central importance which it had in 
Gnosticism.—All these details prove that, although the heresy in question 
was in many respects akin to Gnosticism, its nature was still distinct. 
Peculiar to both is the mingling of revealed religion with Gentile specu- 
{ation; but in the one case—in Gnosticism—Christianity itself was invaded 
and penetrated by heathen philosophy ; while here, on the other hand, 
Judaism first underwent that process. This Judaism, modified by specu- » 
Jation and united with Christianity, assumed, indeed, new elements, and’ 
suffered thereby many alterations. Still there was no substantial change 
of form, the Christian element in this form of Jewish Christianity being 
always overpowered by the Jewish. From it there arose such phenomena 
as are presented in the Ebionite, the Clementine, the Elkesaitic, and other 
heresies which are distinguished from systems strictly Gnostic, by pre- 
serving as much as possible a monotheistic character. To this speculative 
Jewish Christianity belongs also the heresy mentioned and combated in 
the Pastoral Epistles. It does not follow, however, that it was one single 
system definitely developed; the apostle rather keeps in view the general 
tendency which embraced manifold distinctions, so that all the individual 
features dwelt on by him were not necessarily characteristic of all these 
heretics. The general judgment refers to all. All who have yielded to 
this tendency stand opposed to the doctrine of the gospel as well as 
to Christian morality ; but all did not give direct utterance to the principle 
that the resurrection had already taken place, or that marriage was to be 
avoided, and we are not bound to regard them all as impostors, or as men 
who put on the appearance of piety only from motives of greed. One 
point might be more prominent in one, another in another; they are all, 
however, governed by one spirit, which could. only exercise a disturbing 
influence on true Christianity.—This tendency is substantially the same 
as that combated in the Epistle to the Colossians. The distinction is 
simply this, that at the time of composing the Pastoral Epistles the same 
heresy was found in a stage of higher development. The doctrine of 
angels had already assumed the form of an emanation theory; the cen- 


INTRODUCTION. 43 


trast between spirit and matter had been made wider, and the self-seeking 
motives in its followers had become more distinct.! 


SECTION 5.—AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


Eusebius reckons the Pastoral Epistles among the homologumena, as 
there existed not the smallest doubt of their genuineness in the catholic 
church. They not only stand as Pauline Epistles in the Muratorian Canon 
and the Peschito, but they are also repeatedly quoted as such by Irenaeus, 
Tertullian, and Clemens Alex. Though they are not specially quoted by 
earlier ecclesiastical writers, yet many expressions and sentences occur 
showing that they were not less known than the other Pauline Epistles, 
such expressions appearing as quotations, or at least as reminiscences.” 
Clemens Rom. not only makes use of the expression eioéBera, so often 
used in the Pastoral Epistles to denote Christian piety, but also in Ep. I. 
ad Corinth. chap. 2, we have a phrase almost agreeing with Tit. iii. 1: 
éTouuot ei¢ Tav Epyov ayaboy, and in chap. 29 there is an echo of the words in 
1 Tim. ui. 8 which can hardly be denied: zpoceAAauev ait@ év doiotnTe Wuyye, 
ayvac Kai auiavtove yeipac aipovtec tpd¢ avtév.—In the Epistles of Ignatius, the 
passage in the Ep. ad Magnes. chap. 8: py mavacte raic érepodokiaic, unde 
pvieiuact Toig TahaLoic avogeréoy ovo, reminds one of 1 Tim. i. 4 and Tit. iii. 
9.—Still more striking is the agreement between some passages of the 
Epistle of Polycarp and corresponding passages in the Pastoral Epistles. 
Thus in particular chap. 4: apy7 ravtwv yarerov gidrapyupia’ eiddérec ody, dre 
ovdév eionvéyKamev ei¢ Tov Kécpov GAN ovdé éeveyKeiv TL Eyouev, OTAtcapeba ToiC 
ordoe THE dixaoabvye, with 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10,—an agreement which even de 
Wette can only explain by supposing Polycarp to have been acquainted 
with this epistle—In Justin Martyr the expressions @eocéBera and evoéBeca 
frequently occur. In his Dialog. c. Tryph. chap. 47, we have: 4 xpyorérne 
kai 7 otdavipwria tov Ocov, as In Tit. 11. 4.3 In the Ep. ad Diogn. chap. 4, 
there isthe expression : avt@v OeoceBeiac uvoThpiov uy TpocdoKhone K.T.2., Which, 
compared with 1 Tim. iii. 16, is not to be overlooked.—Hegesippus (Euseb. 
H. E. iii. 32),in agreement with 1 Tim. vi. 20, calls the heresies yvaore 
pevdaveupoc, provided that Eusebius is quoting him verbally, and not simply 


1To the view expressed here, Zéckler (in 
Vilmar’s Past.-theol. Bldtter, 1865, p. 67) has 
given his adherence. 

2Comp. especially Otto’s thorough inves- 
tigation in the excursus, “ The External Tes- 
timonies to the Authenticity of the Pastoral 
Epistles,” appended to his work, Ueber die 


geschichtl. Verhdltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. 

3The appeal to Euseb. H. E£. iii. 26, who 
quotes words from a work of Justin’s, is out 
of place, since the expression: 70 méya THs 
OeoceBeias pvotypiov, occurring there, does 
not belong to the quoted passage. 


44 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


giving the substance of his thought; see p. 48.—Theophilus of Antioch 
says, ad Autolyc. ii. 14, clearly alluding to 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2: ére pév cai repi 
tov brotdocecba apyaic Kai éFovoiac, Kai evyectac irép avTav, KeAever buiv Oeiog 
Adyoc, bTw¢ ypenov Kai yobyiov Biov diayouev.. In Athenagoras, also, there are 
several allusions to passages in our epistles; thus, Leg. pro Christ. pp. 87, 
39, etc.—It might indeed be thought strange, that when the older ecclesi- 
astical writers are dealing with the same subjects as occur in the Pastoral 
Epistles, or subjects akin to them, there is not some more definite allusion 
to these epistles; but this is quite natural, when we take into account 
their relative independence.—According to the testimonies quoted, it is a 
point beyond dispute that the- Pastoral Epistles from an early time were 
It is differ- 
In Marcion’s Canon all three are 
wanting, and Tatian acknowledged only the Epistle to Titus as genuine. 


regarded in the catholic church as genuine Pauline Epistles. 
ent, indeed, with the Gnostic heretics.” 


We cannot infer, from the absence of the epistles in his Canon, that 
Marcion did not know them. Jerome, in his introduction to the Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to Titus,’ reproaches him as well as other heretics 
It is well known what liberties 


Marcion ventured to take with many N. T. writings recognized by him- 


with rejecting the epistles willfully. 


self as genuine; and it is quite in keeping with his usual method, that he 
should without further ado omit from the Canon epistles containing so 
decided a polemic against Gnostic tendencies. The striking fact, however, 
that Tatian acknowledges the Epistle to Titus as genuine, may arise from 
his being more easily reconciled to it than to the Epistles to Timothy, 
because in it the heretics are more distinctly called Jewish heretics than 


in the latter; comp. i. 10, 14, 111.9. But however that may be, the oppo- 


1 We should also note Theoph. Ant. ad Aut. 
i. 2: Omws 7 Kai TovUTO cis detyma, TOU mEAAELY 
AapBavery Tovs avOpwrovs mEeTavoLav Kat adeoty 
apuaptumv 6.’ vdatos Kat AovTpov TadALyyevedias 
TaVTAS TOUS TMpOociovTas TH aANOEla Kal avayev- 
vwwevous; comp. with Tit. ili. 5. 

2Nevertheless, in the fragments of some 
Gnosties, preserved to us by the Fathers, 
there are some passages which point back to 
the Pastoral Epistles. Thus in Herakleon 
(Clem. Al. Strom. Book iv. p. 502) the phrase: 
apvncac0ar éavtov ov Svvatar, is to be com- 
pared with 2 Tim. ii. 18; and in the extracts 
from Valentinian sources which are contained 
in the work: ’Ex trav @eoddtov Kai THs avato- 


Aukys Kadoumerns Sidackadtas Kata Tovs Ovad- 


evTivov xpovous emtTomat, usually appended to 
the writings of Clem, Al., we have the expres- 
sion $s ampoottov, with which comp. 1 Tim. 
vi. 16. 

3Liecet non sint digni fide, qui fidem pri- 


See on this, Otto, J. ¢.- 


mam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et 
Basilidem et omnes haereticos, qui V. laniant 
Test., tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si 
saltem in Novo continerent manus suas. . . 

Ut enim de ceteris epistolis taceam, de quibus 
quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant 
eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas 
crediderunt, ad Timotheum videlicet utram- 
. . Sed Tati- 
anus, qui et ipse nonnullas Panli epistolas 


que, ad Hebraeos et ad Titum. . 


repudiayvit, hane vel maxime, h. e. ad Titum, 


INTRODUCTION. 45 


sition of these heretics, when the genuineness of the epistles is recognized 
by the Fathers, can furnish no reason for doubt, all the less that Tertullian 
even expresses his wonder how Marcion could have left them out of his 
Canon.—After Tatian, their genuineness remained uncontested till the 
beginning of this century; only the more recent criticism has attempted 
to make it doubtful. At first the assault was directed against the First 
Epistle to Timothy. After J. E. C. Schmidt, in his Introduction, had 
expressed some doubts, its authenticity was disputed in the most decided 
manner by Schleiermacher in his letter to Gass, 1807. Schleiermacher 
acknowledged the authenticity of the two other epistles, and tried to 
explain the origin of the First by saying that the others had been used 
and imitated. He was at once opposed by Planck, Wegscheider, Beck- 
haus, who stoutly defended the epistle attacked by him; but the contro- 
versy was by no means settled by them. Criticism went farther on the 
way once opened, directing its weapons against the presupposition from 
which Schleiermacher set out in his polemic. From the inner relation- 
ship of all three epistles, it was impossible to deny that many grounds 
which Schleiermacher urged against the authenticity of the one epistle 
were not less strong against that of the others. Eichhorn therefore 
attacked the authenticity of all three, and was followed by de Wette (in 
his Hinleitung ins N. T. 1826), but with some uncertainty. For although 
de Wette declared them to be historically inconceivable, and combined 
Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to Timothy arose from a 
compilation of the other two, with Eichhorn’s theory, that not one of the 
three was Pauline, he still confessed that the critical doubts were not 
sufficient to overturn the opinion cherished for centuries regarding these 
epistles, which did indeed contain much Pauline matter, and that the 
doubts therefore only affected their historical interpretation—De Wette’s 
theory, so wavering in itself, was besides only of a negative character. 
Eichhorn, on the other hand, had already tried to reach some positive 
result, by expressing the opinion that the epistles were written by a pupil 
of Paul in order to give a summary of his verbal instructions regarding 
‘the organization of churches. In this he was supported by Schott (Isagoge, 
1830), who, in a very arbitrary fashion, ascribed the authorship to Luke.— 
Again, there was no lack of defenders of the epistles assailed. Hug, 
Bertholdt, Veilmoser, Guericke, Bohl, Curtius, Kling, and others! took 


Apostoli pronuntiandam credidit; parvipen- 1Neander, also, in his Gesch. der Pflanzung 
dens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hace ... der Kirche, 1832; confessing, however, 
parte consentiunt, assertionem. that he had not the same confident conviction 


46 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


up the defence, partly in writings of a general character, partly in special 
treatises. Heydenreich and Mack also made a point of refuting the 
charges in their commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles —Eichhorn’s pos- 
itive result had remained very uncertain, a mere suggestion without any 
tenable grounds. So long as no firmer and better supported theory was 
brought forward, the defence also had no sure basis. Baur was right 
(Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P. aufs neue kritisch untersucht, 1835) in say- 
ing that “there was no sufficient basis for a critical judgment so long as it 
was known only that the epistles could not be Pauline; that some positive 
data must also be established by which they could be transferred from the 
time of the apostle to some other.” The theory which Baur had formed 
of the relations of Christian antiquity, together with the peculiar char- 
acter of the Pastoral Epistles, led him to believe that they had been 
written while Marcionite errors were current, and written by an author 
who, without being able to get rid of Gnostic views himself, had in the 
interests of the Pauline party put his polemic against Gnostic doctrines in 
the mouth of the Apostle Paul. In this way Baur thought he had found 
a firm positive foundation for criticism, and thereby brought it to a con- 
clusion. But his opinion did not stand uncontested. Baumgarten, Bottger, 
and Matthies, in particular, appeared against it, and it is only the later 
Tubingen school that has given adherence to it. Even de Wette, in his 
commentary, 1844 (though he was more decided than ever in disputing 
the authenticity), declared himself against it, though in a somewhat 
uncertain fashion. His words are: “Since the references to Marcion are 
not at all certain, and the testimonies to the existence of the Pastoral 
Epistles cannot be got over, we must apparently assume an earlier date 
for their composition, say at the end of the first century.’”—Credner, in his 
Hinleitung ins N. T. 1836, advanced a peculiar hypothesis, viz., that, of the 
three epistles, only the one to Titus is genuinely Pauline, with the excep- 
tion of the first four verses; that the Second Epistle to Timothy is made 
up of two Pauline Epistles, the one written during the first, the other 
during the second imprisonment at Rome, and is interwoven with some 
pieces of the forger’s own; lastly, that the First Epistle to Timothy is a 
pure invention. As a matter of course this ingenious hypothesis found no 
adherents, and, later, Credner himself (das N. T. nach Zweck, Ursprung, 
Inhalt fiir denkende Leser der Bibel, 1841-18438, chap. ii. pp. 98 f.) withdrew 
it, and declared all three letters to be not genuine.—Soon after the appear- 


of the genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy as of the direct Pauline origin of all the 
other Pauline Epistles. 


INTRODUCTION. 47 


ance of this commentary, Wiesinger, in his commentary, 1850, declared 
himself for the genuineness of all three epistles, and made a thorough- 
going defence of them. Later, however, Schleiermacher’s hypothesis 
found a supporter in Rudow (in the work already quoted, 1850)—Reuss, 
in the second edition of his Gesch. der heil. Schriften, 1853, is not quite 
certain of the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the First Epistle 
to Timothy, but is quite confident that the Second Epistle to Timothy is 
genuine. On the other hand, Meyer, after declaring in the first edition 
of his Convmentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1836, the genuineness of 
the Second Epistle to Timothy to be beyond doubt, in the second edition 
of the same commentary, 1854, acknowledges that the three epistles stand 
or fall with each other; and that if they were written by Paul, it could 
only have been after the first imprisonment in Rome, the one mentioned 
by Luke. At the same time, he disputes the reality of a release and a 
second imprisonment, and therefore cannot admit the genuineness of all 
three epistles. His remarks amount to this, that the more precarious the 
proof of the second imprisonment, the greater justification there is for 
the doubts of the genuineness, doubts arising from the epistles them- 
selves —About the same time, Guericke, in his Neuwtest. Isagogik, 1854, 
re-stated his conviction of the genuineness of all three epistles. Mangold 
(in his work, Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, 1856) admits, on the contrary, 
that neither the heresy mentioned in the epistles, nor the precepts con- 
tained in them regarding church matters, militate against their origin in 
the time of Paul. At the same time, he remarks that their authenticity 
is dependent on the solution of a whole series of other questions, and that 
the weight of these compels him to take the side of the exegetes who do 
not acknowledge their Pauline origin—Bleek (Hinleitung ins N. T. 1866) 
defends the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the Second Epistle 
to Timothy. Regarding the First Epistle to Timothy, he thinks that it 
presents difficulties so considerable that we may suppose it to have been 
written in Paul’s name by an author somewhat later, but within the 
orthodox church. Hausrath (Der Apostel Paulus, 1872) considers the 
epistles to be not genuine, but conjectures that the Second Epistle to 
Timothy is based “on a short letter addressed to Timothy by the apostle 


? 


from his imprisonment in Rome.’ Plitt thinks them Pauline in contents, 
but supposes that “they have been worked up afterwards by the addition 
of one or two utterances from oral tradition, which has given a somewhat 
different color to them.” As the latest decided defenders of the genuine- 
ness besides Otto (1860), we may name specially, L. Ruffet (1860), van 


Oosterzee (1861, ’74), and Hofmann (1874). 


48 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.’ 


The reasons which chiefly awaken doubt regarding the genuineness of 
the epistles are the following three :—(1) the difficulty of conceiving his- 
torically that Paul composed them; (2) allusions and discussions which 
point to a later time than that of the apostles; and (3) their peculiarity 
in development of thought and mode of expression, departing in many 
respects from the epistles which are recognized to be genuine. 

As to the first reason, the difficulty exists only when we presuppose that 
the apostle was not released from the Roman imprisonment mentioned 
in Acts, and that therefore the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle 
to Titus must have been composed before, the Second Epistle to Timothy 
during that imprisonment, if they are to be considered genuine at all. 
But this presupposition, as already shown, has no sufficient grounds, and 
with it disappears one reason for disputing the authenticity of the epistles. 

In regard to the second reason, there are especially three points to be 
considered—(1) the heretics against whom all the three epistles contend ; 
(2) the church-organization presupposed in the First Epistle to Timothy 
and in the Epistle to Titus; and (8) the institution of widows, mentioned 
in the First Epistle to Timothy. 

1. In regard to the heretics, comp. 24. Only by taking a false view of 
their nature can these be adduced as testifying against the authenticity of 
the epistles. In what the author says of them, there is nothing which 
compels us to assign them to the post-apostolic age. 

2. The church-organization.—Those who dispute the genuineness of the 
Pastoral Epistles, especially Baur and de Wette, reproach their author 
with hierarchical tendencies, and maintain that the establishment and 
improvement of the hierarchy, as intended by the hints given in these 
epistles, could not have been to Paul’s advantage. While de Wette con- 
tents himself with this general remark, Baur goes more into detail. In 
the earlier work on the Pastoral Epistles, he remarks that in the genuine 
Pauline Epistles there is no trace of distinct officers for. superintending 
churches (comp. on the contrary, Rom. xii. 8: 6 xpoiorduevoc; 1 Cor. xii. 28: 
KvBepvgoerc), Whereas, according to these epistles, the churches were already 
so organized that éricxoror, tpeoBirepor, and didxove: have a significant promi- 
nence. In this he assumes that the plural rpeoBirepo denotes collectively 
the presidents who, each with the name of iioxoroc, superintended the 
individual churches. In the later work on Paul, Baur asserts that the 
Gnostics, as the first heretics proper, gave the first impulse to the estab- 
lishment of the episcopal system. Granted that such was the case, that very 
fact would be a reason for dating the composition of the epistles earlie 


INTRODUCTION, 49 


than the time of Gnosticism, since there is no trace in them of a regular 
episcopal system. Even if Baur’s view regarding the relation of the 
expressions mpeoBitepoe and éxioxoroc Were correct, the meaning of érickoro¢ 
here would be substantially different from that which it had later in the 
true episcopal system.—In our epistles we still find the simplest form of 
church-organization. The institution of the deacons had already arisen 
in the beginning of the apostolic age, and although tradition does not 
record at what time the presbytery began or how it was introduced, it 
must, apart from all the evidence in Acts, have arisen very early, as we 
But all the 


instructions given in our epistles regarding the presbyters and deacons 


cannot conceive a church without some superintendence. 


have clearly no other purpose than to say that only such men should be 
taken as are worthy of the confidence of the church, and are likely to 
have a blessed influence-—Where in this is there anything hierarchical ? 
Had the Pastoral 
Hpistles arisen at a later time, whether at the end of the first or in the 


How different the Epistles of Ignatius are on this point! 


middle of the second century, the ecclesiastical offices would have been 
spoken of in quite another way. Wiesinger is right in insisting on the 
identity between bishop and presbyter which prevails in the epistles, on 
the entire want of any special distinctions given to individuals, and also 
on the absence of the diaconate in the Epistle to Titus. “On the whole,” 
says Wiesinger, “there is clearly revealed the primitive character of the 
apostolic church-organization ” (comp. also Zéckler, /.¢. p. 68). Wiesinger 
is also right when he points to dpéyeo6at éxioxorge, to the vedduroc, and to the 
diaxrixée as signs that the epistles were composed in the later period of 
Paul’s labors. It may be thought strange, however, that while such indi- 
cations are not contained in the epistles recognized to be genuine, they 
are given here; but it must, on the other hand, be observed that it must 
have been the apostle’s chief concern in the later period of his life, all the 
more that he saw the church threatened by heretics, to instruct the men 
who had to take his place in setting up and maintaining the arrangements 
for the life of the church.! There is no ground whatever for asserting that 
Paul had not the least interest in ecclesiastical institutions, and that this 


want had its deep ground in the spirit and character of the Pauline 


1The charge, that the system is insisted on 
too strongly, is in any case exaggerated. In 
the Second Epistle to Timothy nothing is 
said of it at all, and in the two others it is dis- 
cussed only in a few single passages, and in 
such simple fashion that nothing more is said 


4 


than is absolutely necessary. In particular, 
the divine origin of the episcopal office is 
nowhere named, much less emphasized. 
Even Clement of Rome insists on the signifi- 
eance of the office quite differently from 


what is done here. 


00 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 


Christianity. Besides, all this is in most striking contrast with the infor- 
mation given us in Acts regarding the nature of the apostle’s labors.! 

3. The institution of widows.—Schleiermacher quoted what is said in 1 
Tim. v. 9 ff. regarding the yfpa, as a proof of the later origin of this 
epistle. At the same time, he did not, like many other expositors, under- 
stand ver. 9 to refer to their being placed on the list of those whom the 
church supported, but to their admission as deaconesses; and he thinks 
that such a regulation, ordaining that deaconesses shall promise perpetual 
widowhood, that they shall not marry a second time, and that their chil- 
dren shall be grown up, is not conceivable in the apostolic age (Ueber den 
1 Br. an Tim. pp. 215-218). While Schleiermacher thus takes ypa to be a 
name for the deaconesses, Baur gives a different explanation of the word 
as used in ver. 9. He thinks that this expression denoted, in the ecclesi- 
astical language of the second century, those women who devoted them- 
selves to an ascetic mode of life, and who in this capacity formed an 
ecclesiastical grade very closely connected with the grade of ézicxoro, 
mpeoBitepor, and didxovor, on which account the name of deaconesses was 
given to them. It seems, says Baur further, that they were not real 
widows, but bore that name. As a proof of this, Baur quotes in particu- 
lar the passage of Ignatius, Hp. ad Smyrn. chap. 18, where he greets rove 
oikoug TOV adeAd@V ody yvvalei Kai TéKvoLc, Kai TaC TapHévovc, Ta¢ AEyouévac yHpac. 
But that passage only -proves that in the second century there were virgins 
who, of course for ascetic reasons, remained in that condition, led a 
retired life, and, as solitaries, were named yapa.2 It cannot, however, be 
in the least inferred from this that the yjpa: named in the First Epistle of 
Timothy were such rap6évo.; on the contrary, everything here said of the 
xipac shows that actual widows ‘are meant. It is true that in verse 9 only 
those widows are spoken of who can be called church-widows ; but Baur’s 
assertion, that at the time of the composition of the epistle, according to 
ver. 11, virgins also were received into the number, is an erroneous 
opinion, which can only be supported by a wrong interpretation of the 


verse. On the whole, however, it is very questionable whether we should 


1 Only this much is correct, that Paul in his 
apostolic labors could not begin with regula- 
tions for the church, and could not expect 
from 


salvation church-organization. But 


later, when there had developed a manifold - 


life in the churches, he kept organization 
more in mind—a fact which does not conflict 
with his peculiar spirit. Luther’s conduct in 


this respect forms an interesting parallel. 
21Tt is incorrect to interpret, as do Béttger 
and Wiesinger, map8évous of real widows, and 
to take the addition tas Aeyouevas xypas as a 
more precise explanation of the expression 


map0evovs. In that case Ignatius could not 


' but have said; ras xypas, tas Aeyoméevas map 


Oévous. 


INTRODUCTION. 51 


think of deaconesses at all in the passage. This view was disputed 
formerly by Mosheim and recently by de Wette. Mosheim supposes that 
the y7pa, as ecclesiastical personages, are to be kept distinct from the 
deaconesses, and that Tertullian, de vel. virg. chap. ix., speaks of those 
who are also called xpeaBiridec, presbyterae, presbyterissae. (The other 
proof-passages to which Mosheim appeals are : Palladii vita Chrysostomi, 
p. 47; Hermae, Pastor, Vision II. p. 791, ed. Fabricii—Lucianus, de morte 
Peregrini, Works, vol. iii. p. 385, ed. Reitzian. ; particularly also the eleventh 
canon of the Council of Laodicea, which in the. translation of Dionysius 
Exiguus runs thus: mulieres, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur, 
apud nos autem viduae seniores, univirae et matriculariae nominantur, 
in ecclesia tanquam ordinatas constitui non debere.) The distinction, 
according to Mosheim, lay in this, that the deaconesses acted as attendants, 
observed what went on among the women, and did not venture to sit 
down among the clergy; while the spiritual widows occupied an honorable 
place in the congregation, had a kind of superintendence over other 
women, and were employed in instructing and educating the orphans who 
were maintained by the love of the churches. If Mosheim’s view is 
correct (see on this the exposition of 1 Tim. v. 9 ff), we can see no reason 
why such a grade of widows should not have arisen in the apostolic age. 
Even de Wette thinks it probable that, from the very first, pious widows 
had an ecclesiastical position, and his only objection is that in this place 
it is presupposed to be a position defined by law and resting on a formal 
election. But karateyéobw in ver. 9 by no means presupposes an election 
in the proper sense. The demand that the widow should be évd¢ avdpoc 
yuh has caused much difficulty; this difficulty, however, vanishes when 
the expression is rightly explained (see the exposition). 

Besides the points mentioned, many others are quoted in proof by the 
opponents of the authenticity ; all these, however, fall to the ground when 
the passages are explained. There is no doubt that the attacks often pro- 
ceed from nothing but a groundless view of the relations of the apostolic 
age, and not seldom rest on the wrong presupposition that usages and 
views met with in authors of the second century were formed only in their 
time, and were not rather propagated from the preceding age. We can 
only discuss one more point here, and that is the assumed vedry¢ of 
Timothy. It has been thought strange that in both Epistles to Timothy 
he should be spoken of as still a young man; that, as de Wette says, the 
author “places him on a low-footing, reminding him, as a beginner whose 
faith is weak and doctrine hesitating, of his pious education, of the 


52 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


instruction received from Paul, of the use of the Holy Scriptures, ques- 
tioning his ability to understand a parable, and exhorting him, as a 
coward, to brave devotion to the cause of the gospel.” We need hardly 
remark how much exaggeration there is in this description. But as to 
Timothy’s youth, de Wette assumes that at the time of the apostle’s 
Roman imprisonment he had already been about ten years in the 
ministry of the gospel, and was then at least thirty-five years of age. This 
reckoning, however, is very uncertain. The manner in which he is spoken 
of in Acts xvi. 1 ff., on-his first acquaintance with the apostle, would 
rather suggest that he was then a good deal younger than twenty-five. It 
is to be observed that Paul, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, also 
feels himself compelled to remark regarding Timothy : pj rie abrov eEovbe- 
‘vq6y, Which remark was certainly caused by his youth; see Meyer on the 
passage.—Besides, we must take into consideration both the difference 
between his age and that of the apostle, and also the relation of his age 
to the position which the apostle had assigned to him shortly before the 
composition of the epistle, and which gave him the superintendence over 
the church with the oldest in it, etc. Further, we do not see what should 
have moved a forger to represent Timothy as younger than he could have 
been according to historical facts —It is not right to say that the pressing 
exhortations imparted to him in the epistles place him on too low a foot- 
ing, since Paul had had many sad experiences in the last period of his life, 
and he is far from refusing to put any confidence in his pupil. 

As to the third reason, we have already remarked that the Pastoral 
Epistles have much that is peculiar in expression and in development of 
thought. The only question is, whether the peculiarity is great enough to 
be an argument against their apostolic origin. The number of drag 
deyoueva Occurring in them is obviously not decisive, since every one of 
Paul’s epistles contains less or more of such expressions peculiar to itself ; 
thus the Epistle to the Galatians has over fifty ; the Epistles to the Ephe- 
sians and the Colossians have together over 140.—The use of some of these 
expressions in later authors (e. g. avOpwroc tov Ocov in Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. 
chap. 6; didackariac dapoviey in Tertullian, De praeser. haer. chap.7) is 
clearly no proof that they belong only to post-apostolic times. It would 
be otherwise if such expressions could be shown to have arisen from some 


1Bleek takes objection to uydeis cov tHs - commissions.” It is, however, to be observed, 
veoTnT0s Katappoveitw, because “though Tim- that Paul in the epistle is giving him a 
othy was not yet at the time exactly old, he position in the church such as he had never 
had been Paul’s trusted helper for many before occupied. 
years, and had received the most weighty 


INTRODUCTION. 53 


view or custom which was formed only in a later age; but that is not the 
case. The statements that the expression pac yuvarxdc avip presupposes an 
unapostolic view of marriage, that the plural BacAei¢ points to a period 
when, in consequence of the custom of adoption, introduced since 
Hadrian, there were co-emperors besides the emperor proper, and other 
similar statements, made by Baur, ere arbitrary and without proof. On 
the other hand, the peculiar circumstances of these epistles made peculiar 
expressions necessary. Apart from the reference to the circumstances of 
the church here discussed, and to the position of the receivers of the 
epistles as assisting the apostle in his ministry, there is especially the 
heretical tendency, which could not but exercise a distinct influence on 
the expression. This would happen not merely in passages directly 
polemical, but also in the sections containing more general exhortations 
connected by the author in any way with the heretical-errors. Wiesinger 
is right in remarking: “Considering all the circumstances, that the 
epistles are aimed at new phenomena, that they are addressed to fellow- 
teachers, that they are kindred in contents, and were composed at the 
same time, the peculiar vocabulary is conceivable, and, in comparison 
with Paul’s other epistles, presents no special difficulty.” —The epistles are 
peculiar, not only in individual expressions, but also in the entire manner 
of their thought and composition, and from this some have tried to prove 
that they are not genuine. But even this phenomenon is sufficiently 
explained by the peculiar circumstances, in so far as they are in some sort 
business letters, for the express purpose of conveying to their receivers 
short and simple directions on certain points. In this way the lack of the 
dialectic, which elsewhere is so characteristic of Paul, is not surprising. 
Nothing is proved against their authenticity, when de Wette notes the 
peculiarity that “there is -an inclination to turn away from the proper 
subject of the epistle to general truths, and then commonly a return is 
made, or a conclusion and resting-point found, in some exhortation or 
direction to the readers.” Such rapid transitions to general sentences are 
found often enough in Paul; comp. Rom. xiii. 10, xiv. 9, 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20, 
vii. 10, ete. Apart from the form of presenting the subject, the mental 
attitude indicated in the epistles is said to testify against the Pauline 
authorship. De Wette directs attention to the following points as un- 
Pauline :—the prevailing moral view of life, the frequent injunction and 
commendation of good works, of the domestic virtues among others, the 
advocacy of moral desert which almost (?) contradicts the Pauline doctrine 
of grace, the defence of the law in which a moral use of it is granted. 


54 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


But, on the one hand, emphasis is laid most strongly on the ethical char- 
acter of Christianity in all Paul’s epistles; and, on the other, there is 
nothing in these epistles to advocate moral desert to the prejudice of 
divine grace. De Wette acknowledges the universalism in 1 Tim. ii. 4, iv. 
10, Tit. ii. 11, to be Pauline, but he thinks that it has a different polemical 
bearing from that usual with Paul. The natural reason for this is, that 
Paul has not to do with Judaizing opposition here, as in his other 
Epistles——De Wette’s chief complaint is, that the injunctions given to 
Titus and Timothy are too general and brief. But why could the apostle 
not have contented himself with giving the chief points of view from 
which they were to deal with the various cases? Besides, if they are 
really so brief, how comes it that the church has always found in them a 
rich treasure of pointed and pregnant instruction? Nor has the church 
erred in this respect, as may be seen from Stirm’s excellent treatise among 
others: “Die pastoraltheologischen Winke der Pastoralbriefe,” in the 
Jahrb. fur deutsche Theologie, 1872, No. 1. 

It would certainly awaken justifiable scruples, if it could be proved that 
other Pauline epistles had been used in composing these three. The pas- 
sages on which this charge is founded are as follow:—From the First 
Epistle to Timothy, i. 12-14 compared with 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10; ii. 11, 12, with 
1 Cor. xiy. 34, 35. From the Second Epistle to Timothy, i. 3-5 compared 
with Rom. i. 8 ff.; ii. 5 with 1 Cor. ix. 24; ii. 6 with 1 Cor. ix. 7 ff; ii. 8 
with Rom. i. 3; ii. 11 with Rom. vi. 8; ii. 20 with Rom. ix. 21; iii. 2 ff. 
with Rom. i. 29 ff.; iv. 6 with Phil. ii. 17. From the Epistle to Titus, i. 
1-4 compared with Rom. i.1 ff. Certainly the partial agreement is too 
great to be considered purely accidental. But it is as natural to suppose 
that the same author, when led to deal with the same thoughts, em- 
ployed a similar form of expression, as that a forger made use of some 
passages in the genuine epistles of Paul in order to give his work a 
Pauline coloring. 

As a whole, therefore, the diction and thought peculiar to the Pastoral 
Epistles cannot be regarded as testifying against their genuineness. But 
as each of the epistles may bear special traces of non-Pauline origin, 
we must further consider the criticisms made against them singly. 

The First Epistle to Timothy —According to Schleiermacher, it arose out 
of a compilation of the two other epistles. As proof of this, Schleier- 
macher mentions several facts, viz., that many expressions standing in a 
right connection in them, are here used unsuitably; that resemblances 
and agreements are found which amount to an appearance of plagiarism ; 


INTRODUCTION. 55 


and that this appearance is made an undeniable truth by misunderstand- 
ings and by difficulties, only to be explained by the hypothesis of their 
being imported from the one epistle into the other. The expressions to 
which Schleiermacher thus directs attention are as follow :—i. 1: owr%p 
and xo-’ éxcraygv (Tit. 1.3); ver. 2: yryoiw téxvw év riorec (Tit. i. 4); ver. 4: 
uior (Tit. i. 14); mpoot yew, yevearoyiac (Tit. iii. 9); Cyrhoee (idem); ver. 6: 
aoroxgoavtes (2 Tim. ii. 18); ver. 7: diaBeBaoioda: (Tit. iii. 8); ver. 10: 
bytaivovoa didacxadia; ver. 16: irorimworc; ii. 7 compared with 2 Tim. i. 11; 
iil. 2: vyparcov (Tit. ii. 2); ver. 3: duayov (Tit. iii. 2); ver. 4: ceuvdrye (Tit. 
li. 7); ver. 9: év xabapa cvvedqoee (2 Tim. i. 8); ver. 11: py deaBddoue (Tit. 
ii. 3); iv. 6: wapyKoAobOyxac (2 Tim. iii. 10); ver. 7: BeBAAove (2 Tim. ii. 16) ; 
ver. 9: muotog o Adyoc (2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8). But when considered 
impartially, these expressions are by no means unsuitably used in the 
First Epistle to Timothy ; it cannot therefore be proved that they are bor- 
rowed, and Porrowed unskilfully. The agreement of the Pastoral Epis- 
tles in the} mode of expression is sufficiently explained by the fact that 
they were wrii‘en with no long interval between them. Comp. with this 
the general agreement between the Epistles to the Colossians and to the 
Ephesians.—Besides this, however, Schleiermacher charges the epistle not 
only with want of internal connection, launching out often from one sub- 
ject to another, but also with containing many thoughts foreign to Paul 
(i. 8, ii. 14, 15, ii. 5, ete.). But on the former point it is to be noted that 
the epistle is not a work on doctrine, but a business letter, in which sub- 
jects of various kinds are treated according to circumstances; and on the 
latter point, that the thoughts mentioned are not at all in contradiction with 
Paul’s views.—De Wette, too, has no grounds for asserting that the execu- 
tion does not correspond with the aims proposed in the epistle. The pas- 
sage in i. 8, for example, does not justify any one in expecting an elaborate 
polemic against the heretics; it is sufficient for the purpose to give some 
of their characteristics. As a rule, Paul enters on a thorough polemic 
only against those opponents who disputed his gospel from presupposi- 
tions recognized by himself; this, however, was not the case with these 
heretics.—The charges, that the directions for managing the church are 
too general and insignificant, and that the exhortations given to Timothy 
(i. 18 f., iv. 7 ff., 12 ff, v. 23, vi. 11 ff.) are not suitable to his character and 
position, are not to the point; and the same may be said of the assertion, 
that a business letter addressed to Timothy ought to discuss the apostle’s 
special relations with the church at Ephesus, which was so dear to him. 
As to other points, de Wette holds that Schleiermacher goes too far in his 


56. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


unfavorable judgment, and does not agree with the theory of a compila- 
tion. Still he, too, places this epistle after the other two, and considers it 
the last written, though he assigns all three to the same author. All this 
makes it inconceivable how the forger did not express in one epistle what 
he wished to write in the apostle’s name.—Mangold agrees with de Wette 
in regarding the First Epistle to Timothy as the last written. The chief 
ground for this view is the advanced stage of heresy shown in the epistle. 
When the Epistle to Titus was written, the heretics, according to this 
theory, still stood outside the church as purely Jewish Essenes, and had 
had some trifling success only in Crete. When the Second Epistle to 
Timothy was composed, they had found a more favorable soil in Ephesus; 
by fusing their dogmas with Christian ideas they had won over notable 
members of the church, so that there was a danger of this heresy eating 
into it like a cancer. The author was not deceived in this respect, but saw 
“the introduction of Essene dogmas into Christianity completed,” and 
the heretical transformation of the fundamental ideas of Christianity into 
Essenism carried out to its ultimate consequences; hence he wrote 
another Third Epistle. In the earlier epistle, however, “he had chosen 
the situation in Paul’s imprisonment just before his death,’ and thus 
“he had now to select some earlier period in the apostle’s life for writing 
anew.” The hypothesis is clever enough, but on the one hand there is no 
ground for presupposing’that the heresy is more advanced in the First 
Epistle than in the Second, and on the other hand the forger would have 
acted most foolishly in placing the later stage of the heresy in an earlier 
period. Altogether, apart from the necessary explanation which these hypo- 
theses give of some points, they leave many other points quite untouched. 
Mangold, in agreement with de Wette, gives one more proof for this 
theory of later composition—viz. that the Hymenaeus, mentioned in the 
Second Epistle as a member of the church, had already been excommuni- 
cated in the First. But, granting the identity of the persons, why could 
Paul not bring forward later as a heretic a man who had been excommu- 
nicated for his heresy? Besides, in the manner in which the man is men- 
tioned in 2 Tim. ii. 17, there is no indication that Timothy had known 
anything of him before. Bleek (Hinleitung in das N. T.) has anew sought 
to prove the correctness of Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to 
Timothy is the only one not genuine. The chiefground on which he relies 
is the entire want of allusion to personal relations in the church; but this 
want is sufficieatly explained by the motive of the, epistle. Bleek thinks 
it strange that in the instructions regarding the bishopric no mention is 


INTRODUCTION. 57 


made of any particular person in Ephesus fitted for the office; but we 
must remember that those instructions were given to Timothy not for the 
Ephesian Church alone. Stress is laid on the absence of any greetings 
from Paul to the church or to individual members of it, and from the 
Macedonian Christians to Timothy; but greetings were not at all neces- 
sary, and there are other epistles in which they are altogether wanting or 
very subordinate. All the other reasons advanced by Bleek, he himself 
declares to be secondary. When impartially considered, they are seen to 
have no weight—especially for one who, like Bleek, acknowledges that 
the epistle contains nothing un-Pauline. 

The Epistle to Titus—The criticisms made on this epistle by de Wette 
are, that it neither agrees with the state of things mentioned in it, nor 
corresponds with its purpose and the relation of the writer to the reader. 
As to the first point, it rests chiefly on the erroneous theory, that the 
epistle was written soon after the gospel was first preached in Crete. If 
Christianity had already spread to Crete and in the island before the apos- 
tle arrived there, there would be nothing strange in mentioning the multi- 
tude of heretics, nor in the blame given to the Cretans in spite of their 
readiness to receive Christianity, nor in the instructions which presuppose 
that Christianity had been some time in existence there. With regard to 
the second and third charge, we must note, on the one hand, that de Wette 
arbitrarily defines the purpose of the epistle to be, “to give to Titus instruc- 
tions about the choice of presbyters, and about contending with heretics,” 
which certainly makes the greatest part of the epistle appear to bea 
digression from its purpose; and, on the other hand, that the weight and 
importance of the general instructions and exhortations for the develop- 
ment of the Christian life have received too little recognition—Reuss 
(Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften des N. T., 2d ed. 1853) shows greater caution 
than de Wette in his opinion: “The somewhat solemn tone may excite 
surprise, not less so that Paul apparently found it necessary in a special 
letter to say things to Titus which were self-evident. This surprise may, 
however, give way before the consideration that Paul did not consider it 
necessary to deliver to his substitute a kind of official instruction and author- 
ization as his certificate in the churches. More simply and surely it may 
give way, when it is remembered that the apostle wrote for special reasons 
and that an important matter could never appear to him to be too strongly 
enjoined.”—As to other points, even de Wette acknowledges that the epistle, 
“though not written with the Pauline power, liveliness, and fullness of 


thought, has still the apostle’s clearness, good connection, and vocabulary.” 


58 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. * 


The Second Epistle to Timothy.—In this epistle, apart from the historical] 
inconceivability which it seems to him to share with the other two, de 
Wette takes exception to the following points, viz.: that, as already 
remarked, Timothy is not treated in a proper fashion, and that many 
exhortations (especially ii. 2, 14-16, ii. 14-iy. 2), as well as the prophetic 
outbursts (iii. 1-5, iv. 8) and the polemic attacks (ii. 16-21, 28, iii. 6-9, 18), 
do not accord with the purpose of inviting him to come to Rome.—But as 
to the first accusation, the apostle’s exhortations do not by any means pre- 
suppose such a feebleness of faith and faintness of heart in Timothy, as de 
Wette in too harsh a fashion represents; besides, a forger would hardly 
have sketched a picture of ‘Timothy in contradiction with the reality. 
The second accusation is based solely on de Wette’s inability to distinguish 
between the occasion and purpose of an epistle. De Wette further finds 
fault with the epistle, that here and there it is written with no good gram- 
matical and logical connection, and without proper tact (for which he 
appeals to iii. 11, iv. 8!); but these are subjective judgments which decide 
nothing.—Schleiermacher declared the process of thought both in this 
epistle and in that to Titus to be faultless; and Reuss pronounces the 
following judgment on them: “ Among all the Pauline Epistles assailed 
by criticism, no one (except the one to Philemon) bears so clearly the 
stamp of genuineness as this epistle, unless it be considered without any 
perception of the state of things presented in it. The personal references 
are almost more numerous than anywhere else, always natural, for the 
most part new, in part extremely insignificant; the tone is at once pater- 
nal, loving, and confidential, as to a colleague; the doctrine brief and 
hastily repeated, not as to one ignorant and weak, but as from one dying 
who writes for his own peace.—The reference to the apostolic office is the 
chief point from beginning to end, and there is no trace of hierarchical 
ambition or any other later tendencies.” Bleek is decided in maintaining 
the authenticity both of the Epistle to Titus and of this epistle. 


The following are the results of an investigation which takes the actual 
circumstances into careful consideration :—1. The external testimonies 
are decidedly in favor of the authenticity of the epistles. 2. The difficulty 
of bringing them into any period of the apostle’s life disappears when we 
assume a second imprisonment at Rome. 8. The internal peculiarity of 
the epistles, both in regard to the matter discussed in them and in regard 
to the process of thought and mode of expression, presents much that is 
strange, but nothing to testify against the authenticity. 4. “There is no 


sufficient resting-place for the critical judgment of rejection, so long as we 


INTRODUCTION. 59 


only know that the epistles cannot be Pauline; everything depends on 


b 


proving positively that they arose at a later date.’ Such is Baur’s opinion. 
But this positive proof entirely breaks down. Baur’s attempt has no eyvi- 
dence to support it; de Wette makes an uncertain conjecture; and Man- 
gold, who sees Essenism in the heresy, himself admits that this is no 
reason for assigning the epistles to the post-apostolic age. If there are 
difficulties in vindicating the Pauline authorship, it is still more difficult 
to prove in whole or in part how a forger could manufacture three such 
epistles as these are, in form and contents, and foist them on the Apostle 
Paul.—Since, therefore, there is no sufficient proof of the post-apostolic 
origin of the epistles, we may further (as Wiesinger also has completely 
shown) maintain their right to a place in the Canon as Pauline writings, 
all the more that the Pauline spirit is not contradicted in them, and that, 
in comparison with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, they show a 
decided superiority in their whole tenor.) 


1Guericke: “The Pastoral Epistles are against the enemies of the kingdom of God; 
certainly not written in so fresh and livelya but he is at the same time filled with a sad- 
manner, nor do they enter as thoroughly into ness all the more deep, as he beholds the 
details, as do Paul’s earlier epistles. They kingdom of Antichrist develop now and 
show us the great apostle as a grey-haired threaten the future. Thus the fragile (?) 
man, bent with age, with persecution, with covering reveals all the more nobly the spirit 
anxiety (?). His hate is especially sharpened __ of faith and love which dwelt within him,” 


60 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


THatbhov pos Tipédeov extotody xportn. 


A, al. have the shorter inscription pd¢ Tiuéfeov a, which in D E F G is pre- 
ceded by the word apyeras. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. éritay#v] & reads instead érayyeAiav, a reading not found elsewhere, 
and not confirmed by its meaning; it may have arisen inadvertently from 2 Tim. 
i. 1—Ocov owrHpo¢ 7juov.|] In the later Mss. there is great variety in the reading, 
partly by arranging the words differently, partly by adding the article to one or 
other of them, partly by inserting the word rartpé¢ ; Tov owripo¢g 7juav Oeov, 73, 
80, 116, 213, al., Arm.—rov owrijpog Os0v juav, 37.—Oe0v TaTpo¢ Kai CwTipog juaV, 
38, 48, 72, al., codd.—xai kvpiov ‘Ijoov Xpiorov] kai is omitted by various cursives, 
or placed before owrypo¢; the latter in the Mss. just named, as well as in Ambros., 
who has Oeo0v kai cwrHpo¢ juov; the former in Ar. pol., which has Qe0v owrijpo¢ 
juav, Kvpiov. In many cursives kai is omitted along with xvpiov following it ; 
Ocov owrjpog jyuov, in 17, 31, al. ; Tov cwrjpog zor, 43, and in those above men- 
tioned, 38, 48, 72, and in Ambros.—Cod. 118 has Tov owrijpo¢ juav I. X. kat kvpiov’I. 
X.—«vpiov is wanting in the most important authorities, A D* F G, many cursives 
and translations (Syr. both, Copt. Sahid. Aeth., etc.) ; hence it is omitted by 
Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., while Matthaei has retained it with the 
remark: ita omnes omnino mei.—Instead of "Ijoot Xpiorov, the most important 
Mss., etc., have the reading Xporov ‘Ijoov, which is therefore adopted by Griesb. 
x has the same reading as the Rec.: kai xvpiov ’Ijo. Xp.—Ver. 2 yuov after 
matpoc is wanting in A B D* F G 17; 23, al., Copt. (not Sahid.) Arm. Slav., ete., 
and is therefore tobe deleted ; the interpolation is easily explained from a com- 
parison with the other Pauline Epistles—Ver. 4. For yeveasoyiaic, Kevodoyiasg 
occurs as a conjecture.—Instead of Cyt#oerc, x, A and some cursives have éx¢yriaecc, 
which is adopted by Tisch. 8. This reading may be the original one, which as a 
ara& Aeyou. in the N. T. was changed into the usual Cyr7oev¢ ; the meaning is the 
same.—Oixodouiav (Rec.) is found perhaps in no Greek ms. According to Tisch., 
D*** has it; but this is denied by Reiche (Commet. crit. in N. T. I. p. 356). It 
is, according to Reiche: “nil nisi error typothetarum Erasmi, aut conjectura 

Srasmi ipsius;” the latter he considers more probable. By far the most have 
oikovouiav ; only D* and Iren. gr. ap. Epiph. have oixodoufv (aedificationem : Lyr. 
Erp. Syr. p. in m. Vulg. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast.). The reading oixovoyiav is 
supported by authorities so important, that we cannot doubt its correctness. 
Matthaei says: oixovouiav ita ornnes omnino mei, ac ii quidem, qui scholia habent, 
etiam in scholiis, uti quoque interpretes editi, olxodouiav nihil nisi error est typo- 
thetarum Erasmi, 6 cum v confuso, nisi Erasmus deliberato ita correxerit ad 
Latinum aedificationem.— Ver. 8. Instead of ypyrat, Lachm. reads ypyonra, after A 
73, Clem. The common reading is nore natural, and is to be considered right, as the 


CHAP. I. 1, 2. 61 


other has not sufficient testimony.—Ver.9. Instead of the regular forms ratpaAdaie 
and pytpaaoac, A D F G 48, 72,93, al. have tarpodg’ace and pytpoAgac, which 
Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ; several cursives have tatpadoiai¢ and pytpa- 
Aviaic.—Ver. 11. In D* and several versions there stands before kata the art. 77; 
a manifest interpolation in order to connect kata «.7.A. with the foregoing 
diWackaria—Ver. 12. kai yapw éyo] The most important authorities, A FG . 
17, 31, 67** 71, al., Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., etc., also x, are against Kai, which 
seems to have been added in order to join this verse more closely with the previous 
one. In Matthaei «a/ stands without dispute. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 left it out; 
Tisch. 7, with Wiesinger, had retained it, following D K_ L, several versions, and 
Fathers.—évduvayocarti pe] x has the pres. évdvvayovrts, and omits ve; a reading 
supported by no other authority.—Ver. 13. tov mpdorepov dvra] A D* F G x 17, 
67*** 71, 80, al., Dial. c. Mare. have 76 instead of tov. The latter is a correction 
in order to join the partic. and the following subst. more closely with the previous 
ue. Lachm, and Tisch. adopted 7¢. Matthaei, on the other hand, reads rv, 
with the remark: 7d 7p. in nullo meorum inyeni, nisi in uno Chrysostomi @ qui 
fortasse voluit, Tov 7d mpétepov. Muralto likewise reads 76v.—After dvra, A 73 
have we, which is also adopted by Lachm. It disturbs, however, the natural 
connection, and the authorities for it are not sufficient ; hence it is not adopted by 
Tisch—Ver. 15. ~ omits tév before xéovov.—Ver. 16. Lachm. and Tisch. 7, 
following A D, ete. read Xp. Iyo.; Tisch. 8, following x K L P, reads ‘Io. 
Xp.—Instead of tasav according to D K L, Tisch. rightly adopted azacav from 
A F G, etc.—Ver. 17. Instead of ag#apt», D* has the reading afavarw, and F G 
have this word inserted after 6v@.—The word 004@ is rightly rejected by Griesb. 
Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. Buttm. and others, since A D* F G x 387, 179, 73, the 
Syr. Copt. Arm. and other versions testify against it. It was probably an inter- 
polation from Rom. xvi. 27; Matthaei retained it, remarking: Vulgatum habet 
et repetit Chrys. xi. 569, 570; item i. 464, c. v. 398, e. Ath. ii. 425, 453. Attamen 
o0¢@ abest ap. Cyrill. v., a. 295, haud dubie casu ac per errorem. Ex omnibus 
omnino Codd. omittunt soli A D F G 37. Reiche (Comment. crit. in N. T. II. 
pp. 860-863) maintains that oo¢@ cannot be an interpolation from Rom. xvi. 27, 
because the doxology there is not genuine. See, on the other hand, Meyer in his 
critical remarks on the passage; he holds o0¢@ to be genuine, on internal grounds, 
viz.: (1) Because Paul had no reason for emphasizing the unity of God against 
the heretics; and (2) because the reading “6vm o09@ Oe@ is the more difficult 
one. But these internal grounds are insufficient against the weight of the author- 
ities—Ver. 18. Instead of orpatety, ~ has otparevoy. 


Vv. 1,2. [On Vv.1, 2, see Note I., pages 86, 87.] As in most of his 
other epistles, Paul here calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ in the 
narrower sense of the term, according to which it was applied only to 
those immediately called by Christ to the ministry of the gospel. He 
directs attention to the immediate nature of the call by adding the words 
Kar’ éritayny Ocod owthpoc huav «.t.A. In 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim., dua 
HeAfuatoc Ocov is used for a like purpose. The expression kar’ éxcrayiy K.7.A. 18 
found elsewhere in the inscription only in Tit. i. 3, where, however, it is not 
placed in such close connection with azécroz0¢ as here (comp. besides 
Rom. xvi. 26, also 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8). The 6éAjua is the source 


62 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


of the ém:tay7, by which we are to understand the commission given to 
the apostle. By this addition the apostle expresses his “assured con- 
sciousness of the divine origin and worth of his apostleship ” (Matthies). 
It is not, however, an “involuntary” expression. The apostle deliberately 
insists on his apostolic authority, for the very sufficient reason that he 
was laying down in his epistle rules for church life. Heydenreich’s sug- 
gestion, that Paul meant at the same time to confirm Timothy’s position, 
is very far-fetched —6e0v owripoc judév] This collocation of the words is 
only found elsewhere in the N. T. in Jude 25; in all passages of the Pas- 
toral Epistles it usually runs: 6 owryp judv Oedc. In this passage owryp 
juav is added as in adjectival apposition to Geov; while in Luke i. 47 it is 
marked as a substantive by the article. In the Pastoral Epistles corjp is 
used both of God (so frequently in O. T.; comp. LXX. Ps. xxiv. 5; Isa. xii. 
2, xlv. 15, 31; Wisd. Sol. xvi. 7; Ecclus. li. 1) and of Christ; in the other 
Pauline Epistles (e.g. Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20), as well as in John iv. 42, 
Acts v. 31, etc., it serves to denote Christ. Heydenreich is right in 
remarking that God does not bear this name as preserver and benefactor 
of men in general, but on account of the means He has instituted for 
saving and blessing us through Christ.—xai Xpioroi 'Iycov] These words are 
added on account of the apostle’s Christology ; so also in Gal. i. 1—rie¢ 
éAridoc juav] Christ is so named because He is both “the ground of our 
hope ” (Wiesinger) and the object of it. He is hoped for, because by Him 
the cwrypia is brought to completion (Calvin: in eo solo residet tota salutis 
nostrae materia); comp. the expression in Col. i. 27: 9 éAmic ripe dokqo.— 
Tipobéiw yvyoiw téxvy év miote.] Paul calls Timothy his child; he was not so 
Kata oapxa but év riore, since he was converted to the faith by Paul, as we 
learn from 1 Cor. iv. 14-17. Paul usually calls himself the father of those 
who had been led to the faith by him (comp. Gal. iv. 19). The idea of 
réxvov is strengthened by yvgowc, perhaps by way of contrast with the 
heretics. The opposite of yvrjowc¢ is véb0¢ or obk bvTw¢ Sv (comp. Plato, 
Rep. 293). This addition also gives prominence to the fact that Timothy 
was his son in the faith, not in appearance but in truth; hence Paul calls 
him also in 1 Cor. iv. 17 his réxvov ayarntov Kai miotév év Kupio.év rioter] 
“in the sphere of faith,” is not to be connected with yrycim but with réxve, 
as defined more closely by yvyoiw; comp. Tit. i. 4, and see Winer, p. 130 
[E. T. p. 187].—ydprc, toc, etpfvy7] This collocation occurs only in the 
Pastoral Epistles and in 2 John 3; in the other Pauline Epistles it runs : 
xapic buiv Kai eiphvyn. In Gal. vi. 16, however, eipyvn and éAeog are connected 
with one another. In Jude 2 we have: éieo¢ tyiv nai eiphyn Kai ayérn. The 
three expressions manifestly do not indicate three different gifts of grace, 
but only one. The distinction is, that yap points more to the soil from 
which the gift comes, and eipfvy denotes its nature, while the éeo¢ 
(standing between the two others in the Pastoral Epistles) lays stress on 
the element of compassionate love in yapic.t Otto arbitrarily finds in 


1 Wiesinger is right in not agreeing with to the apostle’s position as a prisoner. Van 
’ Olshausen, who wishes to see in the expres- Oosterze® aptly remarks: “Grace may be 
sions owrty7p, €Amis, EAeos, a Special reference called the greatest benefaction for the guilty, 


CHAP, 1,3, 4, 63 


éAeoc “a reference to the official position,” appealing to such passages as 
1 Tim. i. 18, 16; 1 Cor. vii. 25; 2 Cor.iv.1. Paul does also acknowledge 
that his call to the ministry of the word came from God’s éAeo¢ ; but. it 
does not follow from this that the word é4eo¢ is used only in reference to 
the official position; comp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18—ard @e00 rarpac 
xal «.7.4.] Even with the reading judy the genitive Xpicrod ’"Incod cannot 
be made to depend on Oeov. Next to the Father, Paul names Christ as 
the source from which the blessing comes, because all the Father’s gifts 
of blessing come through the Son. 

Vv. 3, 4. [On Vv. 3, 4, see Note II., pages 87-89.] The apostle reminds 
Timothy, in the first place, of a previous exhortation, obviously for the 
purpose of impressing it more deeply on him.—The most natural con- 
struction of the sentence appears to be, to take it as an anacolouthon, to 
connect éy ’Edéom with mpoopeivar, to refer ropevéueroc to the subject of 
mapexddeca, and to make ia dependent on rapexdideod ce x.7.A. This con- 
struction is held by most expositors to be the only admissible one. The 
missing apodosis cannot, however, be supplied before iva, because iva is 
closely connected with what precedes; we may insert with Erasmus “ ita 
facito,” or with Beza “ vide,” or with most expositors “otto Kai viv rapa- 
cad” (Winer, p. 530 [E. T. p. 570]). The peculiarity in such an involun- 
tary (Buttm. p. 831 [E. T. 386]) anacolouthon is, that the grammatical 
connection is not established by, inserting the omitted apodosis. The 
most simple course is to suppose that the apostle had “otro kai viv rapa- 
” in mind, but the place for it was lost in the abund- 
ance of the thoughts that streamed in on him.—Several expositors depart 
from the construction commonly accepted. Matthies takes xpocueiva as 
“stay,” not as “remain behind,” refers zopevduevoc not to the subject of 
rapexddeca, but to ce (making an unjustifiable appeal to Eph. iii. 17, 18, iv. 
i. 2; Col. iii. 161), and explains the whole thus: When Timothy was 
intending to travel to Macedonia, Paul had charged him to stop at Ephesus 
and remain there. Schneckenburger (see his Beitriige 2. Einl. pp. 182 ff.) 
arbitrarily changes the infin. zpooveiva into the partic. rpocpeivac, and 
refers ropevduevoc to the following clause: iva rapayyeidnc. Otto treats 
Topevduevoc in the same way, at the same time connecting év ’E¢écow with 
mapexadeca, taking rpoopeivac in an absolute sense, making the apodosis 
begin with wa, and translating: “Just as I exhorted you to stand firm in 
Ephesus, so shalt thou on the journey to Macedonia command the people 
not to give attention to strange teachers, nor to hold them in esteem,” ete. 


Kado” or “ ovTw Toilet 


compassion for the suffering, peace for the 
contending (?) disciple of the Lord.” Hof- 
mann is right in his remark on 1 Tim. i. 1, 
that xdpis with ard does not denote God’s 
thoughts, but “that in which His thoughts 
are shown, the grace which man receives.” 
In his explanation of 1 Tim. i. 2: “ ydprs is that 


1In the passages quoted, Paul adds the 
participles to the previous clauses in the 
nom., and these participial clauses thus 
acquire the independence due to them 
according to the context. But in these pas- 
sages the relation of the participial clause to 
the preceding main clause is quite different 


which is imparted to man by God, who wishes 
-him well,” the idea of xdépuc is made far too 
general. 


from what it is here, where there is no reason 
whatever for departing from the regular con- 
struction, 


64 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


This construction is, however, so artificial, that it is obviously incorrect to 
every one who is not blinded by the desire of placing the date of the com- 
position of the epistle in a period of the apostle’s life known to us. 


REMARK.—In order to justify his view of the sentence, Otto tries to prove the 
incorrectness of the usual construction, and to get rid of the objections to his own. 
The hypothesis of an ellipsis he rejects on account of the rule that the emphatic 
word can never be omitted, and that if we supply the apodosis by “ ovtw kai viv 
rapaka/@,”’ the emphatic words are kai viv. But these words are not by any 
means the most emphatic. The apostle might be using them not specially of the 
contrast between past and present, but only to give point to his former exhorta- 
tion; hence he might easily omit the apodosis. Otto further maintains, that in 
the usual construction Kkaoc, which always denotes a material, actual correspond- 
ence, even to identity of motives, and further, of material contents, does not get 
its full force. On this point we indeed grant that the peculiar meaning of kafoc¢ 
(as distinguished from oc) is not distinctly marked by the expositors; but it is 
not at all necessary in the usual interpretation to weaken arbitrarily the force of 
kaOoc, since the apostle’s former exhortation could not but be his guide in the 
present one. Still less difficulty, however, is presented by xafac, if we choose to 
supply ott roiec (as Hofmann does), since the meaning then is, that Timothy’s 
conduct is to be conformed to the exhortation already given by the apostle-—Otto 
tries further to show that in the usual explanation the participle topevoyevog is 
not in its proper place. The rules which Otto lays down on the subject of partici- 
pial clauses in order to support his assertion are, on the whole, not incorrect. The 
passages he quotes from the N. T. certainly show that the participle following a 
finite verb mostly defines it more precisely ; that it either explains more precisely 
the verbal notion, or gives ‘the accompanying circumstances of the verb. But 
Otto has overlooked the departures from this rule which occur in the N. T.; 
comp. Luke iv, 40 with Mark i. 31; Matt. xii. 49 with Acts xxvi. 1; Matt. xxii. 
15. with Matt. xii. 14; further, Luke xxiv. 17.' It cannot be denied that the par- 
ticiple following sometimes gives simply the time in which the action of the finite 
verb, takes place; that here, therefore, the Topevouevoc may simply denote the 
time of the former exhortation.’ Otto quotes the passage in Acts xii. 25 as sup- 
porting the rule that the participle following should serve to explain the verbal 
notion, and justifies this by saying that the participle tAypacavtec tiv diakoviav 
gives the motive of the return. But to give the motive is no explanation. In this 
passage, however, the position of the participle after the finite verb is justified in 
this way, that it gives the motive for the action expressed by the finite verb. So, 
too, in the passage here there is nothing to be said against the connection of 
Topevouevog with tapexaAcoa, so soon as we suppose that the journey was the occasion 


10tto tries to weaken the force of this 
passage against him by assuming a rhet- 
orical inversion, because, he says, it is de- 
elared “that taking a walk and holding 
solemn dispute are inconsistent with one 
another” (!). 

2In his groundless denial of this, Otto 
thinks that if topevouevos be joined to wapexa- 
Aeoa it must be assumed to be a circumstance 


accompanying the mapexadeoa, but that this 
assumption is impossible, since a continuing 
fact (part. pres.) cannot be regarded as the 
accompanying circumstance of a concluded 
fact (part. aor.). But Otto overlooks the fact 
that wopevouevos in this connection is not to 
be understood in the sense of continuing a 
journey, but in the sense of beginning one, 
of setting out. 


CHAP. I. 3, 4. 65 


for Paul giving Timothy the exhortation in question. Lastly, Otto attacks the 
usual construction from the notion of tpoopetvar, because this word is explained 
in the construction to be equivalent to “remain, stay ;” whereas, when not con- 
nected with a dative (or with a participial clause representing a dative), but 
standing absolutely, it has the meaning: “to maintain the position hitherto 
possessed, to stand firm.” Hence, if any definition of place is added, it is not as a 
completion of the verbal notion, but only indicates where the standing firm takes 
place. Otto infers from this: “accordingly év ’Edéow here does not complete 
xvosueival, but rather tpooueivac is absolute, and év ’Edéow gives the place at 
which the whole sentence, viz. tapexdAeod oe mpoopetvat, took place.” This infer- 
ence. is obviously incorrect, since from Otto’s premises it only follows that, if év 
’Hoéow belongs to tpooweivat, the place is thus given where Timothy is to stand 
fast,—in particular against the heretics,—it does not follow that év ’Edéow may be 
connected with xpooyeivar. Besides, from Acts xviii. 18, it is clear beyond dispute 
that xpocuévew does occur in the N. T. in the weakened sense of “remain 
stay.”! Otto does not disguise the objections to his view, but he thinks that when 
thoroughly weighed they are more apparent than real. In this, too, he is wrong. 
It is indeed right to say that in the N. T. a sentence often begins with wa without 
any verb preceding on which it depends,—and this not only in cases where the 
governing verbal notion is easily supplied from what precedes, as in John i. 8, ix. 
3, xiii. 18, 2 Cor. viii. 7, but also when that is not the case, so that the clause 
beginning with iva stands as an imperative clause, as in Eph. v. 33; Mark v. 23 
(comp. Buttm. pp. 207 f.). But in all passages where Wa is used elliptically, 
this is shown clearly and distinctly by the form of the sentence, which is 
not the case here. It is right also to say that emphatic parts of the clause con- 
strued with iva are often placed before iva, so that ropevduevoc, therefore, might 
very well be connected with the clause following wa; but this, too, is always 
indicated clearly by the form of the sentence. Wherever words standing before 
wa are to be referred to what follows iva, these words cannot possibly be con- 
‘nected with what precedes them, and the part of the sentence following Wa is 
incomplete in itself, so that it has to be taken along with the part before twa. It 
is wrong to maintain that the participial clause topevduevoc eic Maxed. becomes 
emphatic by contrast with év ’E¢éow, inasmuch as what tgok place in Ephesus is 
now to take place also on the journey to Macedonia ; for—the two things are not at 
all the same. In Ephesus (according to Otto’s view), Paul exhorted Timothy to 
stand firm; but on the journey to Macedonia, Timothy is to encounter those who 
had been led astray. Lastly, it is right to assume that the sender of a letter, if he 
has anything to say of the place from which the letter is sent, may speak of it by 


1Jn this passage, also, Otto claims for zpoc- more, and with abandoning his post.— 


pévevy, aS a VOX Militaris, the meaning: “keep 
one’s ground,” remarking, “for the cireum- 
stances in Corinth were such that they might 
well have induced Paul to cease his labors 
and depart.” But this assertion is in contra- 
diction with Luke’s statement, that the 
attack attempted by the Jews through Gallio 
was decisively warded off. Otto’s explana- 
tion, too, becomes all the more unsuitable, 
since, according to it, Luke would charge 
‘the apostle with not holding his ground 


5 


Further, Otto seems to hesitate whether to 
take mpoopmetvac in the present passage as 
really absolute, or whether to supply with it 
the dative éuoc. After finally deciding for 
the former, he then explains mpoopetvac as 
“keeping ground along with the leader 
appointed by God in the struggle against all 
the attacks of the heretic,’ and thus in self- 
contradiction returns to the latter, since this 
leader is the Apostle Paul. 


66 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


name, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, so that év "E¢éow might convey to us that Paul 
was himself in Ephesus while writing ; but we must take into consideration the 
special circumstances of the case. According to Otto, our epistle isa paper of 
instructions which the apostle put into Timothy’s hands in Ephesus, where he 
wrote it before setting out for Macedonia. In that case it was improper to men- 
tion the place by name. We cannot understand, then, why Paul in such a 
paper of instructions should have laid special stress on the exhortation he had 
imparted to Timothy in the very place where he put that paper into his hands. 


Some expositors take the whole section vv. 5-17 to be a parenthesis, 
and ver. 18 to be the apodosis corresponding to ka#éc. The awkwardness 
of this construction is obvious; but Plitt thinks that, though it is not with- 
out its difficulties, most May be said for it. He is wrong, however, since 
TavTnv THY Tapayyediav, In ver. 18, does not resume the rapexdAecd ce —If we 
avoid all subtleties, we cannot but explain it: ven as I exhorted thee to 
remain in Ephesus when I set out for Macedonia, that thou mightst command 
certain men not to teach false doctrine . . . even so do (or: even so I exhort 
thee also now).' Regarding the meaning of kafé¢ and rpoopeiva, see the 
above remark.—zapexdAeoa] Chrys.: axove td mpoonvéc, mac ov didacKa2ov 
Kéypntat poh, AAW oikétov ayeddv' ov yap elev érétaka, ovdé éxéAevoa, ovd? Trapy- 
veoa, GAAa ti; mapexadeod oe. Towards Titus, however, Paul uses the expres- 
sion dveraFauny (Tit. i. 5), although he was not less friendly towards him 
than towards Timothy.—ropevéuevoc ei¢ Maxedoviav] “when I went away, 
from Ephesus to Macedonia; ” zopevéo6a: has in itself the general meaning 
of going, but it is also used of going away from a place, both absolutely 
(Matt. xi. 7) and connected with azé (Matt. xxiv. 1, xxv. 41, xix. 15: 
éxeifev; Luke xiii. 31: évreifev). Otto explains it: “on the way to Mace- 
donia,” which is grammatically correct, but opposed to the connection of 
ideas. There is no ground whatever for thinking that Paul, in this ex- 
pression, had in mind one particular place on the way to Macedonia, viz. 
Corinth. We can see no reason why Paul should have expressed himself 
indefinitely. Otto, indeed, is of opinion that Timothy could not have 
been uncertain about the meaning of the expression; and that the apostle 
chose it in order to spare the feelings of the Corinthians, and that he 
might not confess to the heretics how they had provoked his apostolic 
opposition to an exceptional degree. But the first reason proves too 
much, since Paul, if he refrained from the definite expression because 
Timothy knew his wishes without it, would also have refrained from the 
indefinite expression. The other two reasons are weak, because if Tim- - 
othy was to labor successfully against the heretics, he must necessarily 
appeal to the authority of the apostle in whose name he was to labor. 
Besides, such playing at hide-and-seek as Otto imputes to the apostle, is 
in entire contradiction with Paul’s frank character.—iva rapayyeiAne k.7.A.] 
gives the purpose for which Timothy was to remain in Ephesus. The 


1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that Paul, " writer was the subject, but only an exhortation 
when he wrote xa@ws (not as), could not have as to what Timothy was to do.” 
had in mind.“ any expression of which the 


CHAP. I. 3, 4. 67 


theory that this gives at the same time the purpose of the whole epistle 
(Matthies), which opinion de Wette brings forward as proving the epistle 
not to be genuine, is wrong.—rapayyeianc] does not necessarily involve the 
suggestion of publicity which Matthies finds in it.—rioi] The same indefi- 
nite term is used for the heretics also in vv. 6, 19, iv. 1, v. 15, etc.: “cer- 
tain people whom the apostle is unwilling to designate further; Timothy 
already knows them” (Wiesinger).—y7 érepodidacxadeiv] [I b.] The word, 
which is not made up of érepog and didaokdiew (= diddoxevv), but is derived 
from érepodiddoxadoc, occurs in the N. T. only here and in vi. 3 (comp. 
érepotvyeiv in 2 Cor. vi. 14). In érepoc there is not seldom the notion of 
different in kind, strange, something not agreeing with something else, but 
opposed to it. Accordingly, in the apostle’s use of the word, a érepodiddo- 
xadoc is a teacher who teaches other things than he should teach, who puts 
forward doctrines in opposition to the gospel; and érepodidackadeiv here 
means nothing else than to teach something opposed to the gospel (Heb. 
Xlli. 9: didayaic rorkiAare Kai Eévare uy Tapagépecbe); Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. 
1. 6: evayyéduov érepov. Wiesinger, in order to favor his theory that heresy 
proper is not spoken of, weakens the meaning into “teach otherwise,” so 
that according to him it signifies “teaching things which lie apart from 
7 kat’ evoéBecav didackadia.” This is incorrect, for in that case some more 
precise definition would have been given——Even in classic Greek, érepoc, 
in composition, often has the meaning alleged by us; thus érepodoteiv = 
diversae opinionis esse; comp. Plato, Theaet. p. 190 E: dégav eivar wevd7 
70 érepodoéeiv. According to Otto, érepodidackadeiv means: “to have another 
teacher, to follow another teacher.” Otto wrongly appeals for this to 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iti. 32, where érepodiddoxatoc does not mean false 
teachers, but “such members of the church as had abandoned the teach- 
ing of the apostles and become attached to strange teachers;” and also 
to Ignat. ad Polycarp. chap. 3, where érepodidacxadovvrec has the same mean- 
ing.’ Otto also makes appeal to the Greek usage, according to which, in 
composite nouns, the concluding word, if it be a noun, does not contain 
the subject of the fundamental thought in such composite words, but the 
nearer or more distant object. But this rule is only valid with adjectival 
forms. In composite substantives, on the contrary, the concluding word 
(if it be an unaltered substantive) may also denote the subject, which is 
only defined more precisely by the word that precedes.2—There is no 


1The first passage runs: tyvtxadra (viz. after 
the apostle’s death) ris a@éov mAavns apxnv 
€AduBavey » avaTacts Sa THS TaY éTepodidac- 
KaAwy amarys, oi Kat... yuury Aormov 7Sy 
Kehady TO THs GAnOecas Kypvymate THY Wevdu- 
vuLOVv yv@o.v avTiknptTTe émexeipovy. The 
relative clause shows most clearly that the 
word érepodidackador means nothing else than 
false teachers.—The second passage is: ot 
Soxodvtes agiomuotor elvar Kai érepodiSacKad- 
ovvTes pn ge KatamAngoéTwoav; in which, 
also, false teachers, heretics, are meant, as is 
evident from the injunction: uy ce x.7.A., as 


well as from the exhortation that follows. 
2The adj. erepdrovs certainly does not 
denote “a halting foot,” but “one who has a 
halting foot.” On the contrary, caxdSoudos is 
not “one who has a bad slave,” but “a bad 
slave.” Comp. also ptxpoBactreds, Wevdduar- 
ts, and others; in the N. T., especially the 
expressions: Wevdodidackados (Wevdompodyzns, 
Wevdsuaptup, WevdaroaTodos), 2 Pet. ii. 1, and 
kadodtdacKados, Tit. ii. 3. It is to be noted, 
also, that in Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Rhet. 42, 
kaxodtdaoKxadecy does not mean “to have a bad 
teacher,” but “ to teach what is bad.” 


68 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


ground whatever for Schleiermacher’s opinion, that the verb suggests the 
idea of a hierarchy.—To 7 érepodidackareiv there is added a second point: 
pndé mpoocéyew K.7.2., Which Timothy is to forbid to twec.t Except in the 
Pastoral Epistles, zpooéye does not occur in Paul. Here, as in Tit. i. 14, 
it includes the notion of agreement; so also in Acts villi. 6.—yidore kai 
yeveadoyiac| The «ai is to be taken epexegetically ; we can neither join the 
two expressions as an hendiadys (fabulosae genealogiae, Heumann), nor 
regard them as denoting different things. The notion of pio has been 
limited too narrowly by many expositors,—as by Theodoret, who under- 
stands by it the traditional supplements to the law; or by others, who take 
it as dénoting the allegorical system of interpretation, or the Jewish 
stories of miracles (such as occur in the pseudo-epigrapha or the Apoc- 
rypha), or even the Gentile mythologies. Leo is wrong in agreeing with 
Theodoret’s exposition, appealing to Ignatius (Hp. ad Magnes. chap. 8), 
and alluding to ver. 7. From that verse it is certainly clear that heretics 
had peculiar views regarding the law, which were in contradiction with 
the gospel; but it is a mere assertion to say that wifo here refers to these 
views, all the more that the word stands closely connected with yeveaAoyiac. 
De Wette limits the meaning of the word in another fashion, inferring 
from 2 Pet. 1. 16: cecogicpévor pifor, that the pifoc here meant, formed the 
definite element in an artificial system; the notion of something artificial 
is obviously imported. Other expositors take the expression quite gen- 
erally in the sense of “false doctrine,’ as Suidas explains the word: 
pvbocg Adyoc Wevdye, eixovilwv tHv aAgGevav; this is too indefinite. Paul rather 
employs it because it was used to denote false ideas regarding the nature 
of the Godhead. The word that follows defines the nature of these pif 
more precisely—On the yeveadoyia: azépavtor, see Introd. sect. 4. Wies- 
inger’s view, that they denote the genealogies in the O. T., as well as that 
of Hofmann, that they are the historical facts in the Thora, are both to be 
rejected. Credner’s view, that the genealogies of Christ are meant, is 
quite arbitrary. So, too, with Chrysostom’s explanation : ojuac cai “EAAqvac 
avtov évraida alvitrecta, brav Aéyn pibore Kai yeveadoyiatc, de. Tod¢ Geode aitav 
kataheydvrov. It is very far-fetched to refer to the Kabbalistic Sephiroth. 
The application of the expression to the Essenic doctrine of angels 
(Michaelis), is contradicted by the fact that theories of emanations cannot 
be proved to have existed among the Essenes. The view upheld by most 
expositors, that the apostle was thinking of the series of emanations in 
the speculation of the heretics, must be considered the right one. It is 
confirmed by the addition of the adjective azépavra. The genealogies are 
“unlimited,” since there was no necessity for them to stop at any point 
whatever. The conclusion was altogether arbitrary : hence, in the various 
systems, the genealogies of the aeons differ from one another in all sorts 
of ways.—airivec| is not simply an attributive relative; it gives at the same 
time the reason of the foregoing exhortation jp? xpocéyew “as those 

1 Without grounds in usage or in fact, Hof- ~ therefore the érepod. was to be applied names 


mann asserts that “mpogéyew tui is not an and the mpocexeuv x«.7.A. to others.” 
expression applicable to a teacher, and that 


CHAP. I. 3, 4. 69 


which.” !—2Zyrioee mapéxovot adAAov 7) oixovouiav Oeov] [II c.] Both notions: 
Cyrhoere and oiKkovox. Gcov, may be taken either subjectively or objectively. If 
tyrnoece be taken objectively it is “points of controversy, questions of dis- 
pute;” if subjectively it is “investigations, controversies, disputations ”’ 
“each one trying to maintain his arbitrary fictions,” Matthies). If 
oikovouia Oeov is taken objectively, it is “the salvation of God” (“the salva- 
tion grounded historically in Christ and publicly preached by means of 
His apostles,” Matthies; or according to others, “the ministry of the 
gospel ;” or, lastly, “the divine gift of grace,” i.e. the divine influence on 
individuals by which they are brought to the faith). If it is taken subjec- 
tively, it is ‘the work of man as an oixovduoc Ocov;”? de Wette: “the work 
of a steward of God in the faith (to be awakened or to be furthered).” 
This latter may be taken, in a general sense, as meaning, “the Christian 
activity, the Christian exercise of the divine gifts of grace,”? or, more 
narrowly: “the maintaining, the strengthening in Christianity, the nourish- 
ment in the faith by the spiritual food of Christianity, which the teachers 
as stewards of God distribute,” Zachariae. The meaning of rapéyovor is 
also modified according to the interpretation of these two notions. If they 
are interpreted objectively, rapéyew is “reach forth, present;” if subjec- 
tively, it is “cause, bring about” (so Gal. vi. 17; also frequently in classic 
Greek and in the Apocrypha of the O. T.)* Zjryoe is not identical with 
CArnua; oikovowia 1s indeed used in the sense of “ office of steward,” but 
oixovoyia Ocov denotes “the preparation, the arrangement made by God” 
(comp. Eph. i. 10, iii. 9), and never “the divine salvation.” Hence the 
subjective interpretation (Hofmann) is to be preferred to the objective (as 
formerly in this commentary; also Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee). In any 
case, Matthies is wrong in taking ¢yrfoe¢ subjectively and oixovouia Oeot 
objectively, and then assuming that wapéyerv is used in a zeugma. Otto’s 
explanation is purely arbitrary.. He explains (yrjcee by “speculations,” 
and oikovouiav Oeov tiv év rioter by “a system of divine order in the universe 
(se. creation and government), resting on faith, grounded in faith,—the 
cosmogony and physics of the Jewish gnosis.” Of the latter phrase, he 
says that Paul “adopts the hypocritical name which the vouodiddoxaho 
claimed for their system, so that the ¢yrfoewc form the real, the oixov. 4 év 
niores, on the contrary, the pretended contents of the pifo: and yeveadoyiat.” 
By the addition of ry év riote:, the labor of the oixévoyoc Oecd is defined 
more precisely as one in the sphere of faith (not “causing faith,” Hof- 
mann).—u4a2A0v 7] as in several passages of the N. T., John in. 19, Acts 
xxvii. 11, 2 Tim. ili. 4, stands here in the sense of denying the thought 
contained in the following member, so that (with Suidas) it is equivalent 
to xai ov.*—With the reading oixodouia (or oixodou7) Ocov, We Must interpret, 


1Comp. Soph. Oed. R. 1184; Pape, Handwért- 3Comp. Wahl, Clav. libr. V. T. apocryph., 
erbuch der griech Spr. See the word ootcs. under the word. 
2 Thus Reiche: istacommenta. . . non ex- 4Hofmann wrongly applies this form of 


hibent, praebent, efficiunt dispensationem expression in order to dispute the reference 
(distributionem) bonorum quae Deus Christo of yeveadoyiac to the series of aeons, say- 
misso in nos contulit. ing: “How could it occur to the apostle to 


70 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


“the edifying in the faith as decreed by God” ees inaccurately: “the 
improvement towards God in the faith ”). 

Ver. 5. bee vy. 5-11, see Note III., pages 89, 90.] To dé réAo¢ tHe mapayye- 
diac éoriv x.7.A.] It oe be denied that in wapayyeAiac we have an echo of 
sa ae in ver. 3; but it does not follow that we are to understand by it 
the command =a the apostle gave to Timothy not to teach falsely (so 
Bengel: praecepti quod Ephesi urgere debes). It rather stands here in 
contrast with the érepodidacxadia Just mentioned, and denotes the command 
which is serviceable to the oixovuia Oeod (ver. 4). It is equivalent to the 
évroay in vi. 14, the evangelic law which forms the external rule for the 
conduct of Christians (Hofmann). The apostle alludes to this because he 
is about to pass to the doctrine of the heretics regarding the law.—It is 
wrong to understand by rapayyedia the Mosaic law (Calvin, Beza, and 
others), from which there would arise a thought foreign to the context; 
and it is unsatisfactory to take it in a general sense as “ practical exhorta- 
tion” (de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee), for in that case the impera- 
tive should have been used instead of éorw. It is a peculiarity of the N. 
T. usage to take expressions which of themselves have a more general 
signification, and to mark them off with the definite article as ideas spe- 
cifically Christian ; thus 7d sbayyéAvov, 7 bdo¢ (often in Acts), 7d kfpvyua, and 
others.—réAoc] is neither “ fulfillment” nor “chief sum” (Luther, Eras- 
mus: quod universam legis mosaicae vim compendio complectitur ac 
praestat est caritas), but “goal, scopus ad quem tendit rapayyedia”’ (Koppe, 
Wegscheider, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others!)—While the érepodidaoxaria 
only causes Cyr#oevc, Which serve to engender divisions (yevvior udyac, 2 
Tim. ii. 28), the aim of the command of the gospel is love —aydarn ék kabapag 
xapdiac x.t.A.] [III b.] The gospel proclaims to the believer one divine act, 
the reconciliation through Christ grounded in God’s love, and it demands 
also one human act, viz. love, for tAfpopa véuov 4 ayarn (Rom. xiii. 10). 
Leo and Matthies wrongly explain aydéz7 here of love to God and to one’s 
neighbor. Here and elsewhere in the N. T., where no other genitive of 
the object is added; we-should understand by it love to one’s neighbor. 
The words following declare of What nature this love should be.—é« 
kafapac kapdiac] kapdia denotes the inward centre of human life, especially 
as the seat of emotions and desires. Hence in regard to love it is often 
remarked that it must come from the xapdia (comp. Matt. xii. 37), and 
from a heart that is pure, ¢-e. free from all self-seeking; 1 Pet. i. 22: é 
xabapacg Kapdiag adAndove ayarhoate éxrevc; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 5: 4 aydrn 
... ov Cyrei ta éavtjc—The two additions that follow: kat ovvedfoews 
ayabijc Kai miotewe avuroxpitov (as is clear from.1 Tim. i. 19, iii. 9, iv. 2), are 
added with special reference to the heretics, who are reproached with 
haying both an evil conscience and a pretended faith.—ovveidnore ayabh 
(ver. 19; 1 Pet. iii. 16; xa%%, Heb. xiii. 18; xafapd, 1 Tim. iii. 9; 2 Tim.i. 


treat the question only as a possible one, | possibility is not indicated by maAdov 7. 
whether these follies of their own invention 1Arriani dissertt. Hpict. Book I. chap. 20: 
could not in some measure be useful to TéAOS €oTl TO EredOar Oeics. 

what he calls oixovouiay @cov? Such a 


CHAP iy 6:70. 71 


3) is not “ the conscience pure from the guilt of sin” (de Wette), nor “ the 
conscience reconciled with God” (van Oosterzee, Plitt), nor “the con- 
sciousness of peace with God” (Hofmann). Although “a conscience not 
reconciled with God and one’s neighbors cannot love purely,” there is no 
hint here of the element of reconciliation. It is simply the consciousness 
of cherishing no impure, wicked purposes.'—riotc] is not confidence 
towards one’s neighbor, as it might be here when placed in connection with 
the idea of love; but, in accordance with the contents ofthe epistle, is 
“ faith,” which in Gal. v. 6 also is denoted as the ground of love.—davuré- 
kptto¢ (also in Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6; 1 Pet. i. 22, connected with the 
idea of love) denotes truth and uprightness in opposition to all flattery. 
It is used here not without allusion to the heretics who conducted them- 
selves as believers in order to gain a more easy admission for their 
heresies. 

Vy. 6, 7. At ver. 6 the apostle passes to the heretics.—év] refers to the 
ideas immediately preceding: é« xafapac xapdiac x.7.A., not—as Wiesinger 
rightly remarks—to ayar7 direct, “since ei¢ pataoAoyiav manifestly denotes 
a false goal in contrast with the true goal, which is dyar7.”*—aoroyjoartec] 
This verb occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, in this passage and also in 
1 Tim. vi. 21 and 2 Tim. ii. 18 (where it is joined with zepi and the accusa- 
tive). Here it stands in its original sense: a scopo sive meta aberrare,® 
which corresponds to the ré4o¢ mentioned in ver. 5, and gives us to under- 
stand that the heretics had at first been on the way which leads to the 
goal, but had not remained in it. In this way Schleiermacher’s criticism 
(p. 90), that the word here is far from clear, loses its force.—é&etparnjoav] é& 
has its full force (Josephus, Antig. xiii. 18: éxrpérecOae tH¢ dd0v dikaiac) in 
this verb, which, except in Heb. xii. 18, only occurs in the Epistles to 
Timothy. The goal to which they have come after turning from the 
Téhog THe Tapayyediag 18 patawdAoyia. This word (only found here; Tit. i. 10: 
patatoAdyo.) characterizes the heresy as empty in nature, contributing 
nothing to the furtherance of the Christian life. It consists on the one 
hand of pibow Kai yeveadoyiac, on the other of such definitions regarding 
the law as were opposed to evangelic doctrine. This latter reference is 
proved by the close connection of the verse with what follows.—#éAovrec ] 
The participle does not express contrast: “although ;” it gives rather a 
more precise definition of the previous verb éferpazycav. Some expositors 
(de Wette: wish to be, without being so in reality; Bengel has temere ; so also 
Plitt) rightly urge that 6éAew expresses an allegation of their own; Hofmann, 


10tto on 2 Tim. i. 3 (pp. 302 f.) explains the 
expression ka@apa ovveidyors rightly (follow- 


2 Hofmann is wrong in disputing the reason 
given by Wiesinger, and maintaining that 


ing Matthies) as “the self-consciousness of 
pure thoughts and endeavors;” but, on the 
other hand, he is wrong in regard to 1 Tim. 
i. 19, where he interprets aya@y ovveid. as 
“the conscience innocent and expectant of 
all salvation,” “the consciousness of divine 
grace supporting itself by daily putting to 
death the old nature.” 


mapayyeAca and not téAos THs mapayyeAtas i8 
opposed to patavodoyia. There is no ground 
also for his assertion that acroxety has here 
the general sense of “to leave uncared for.” 
The éfetpamynoayv clearly shows that aoroxety 
is to be taken in its own proper sense. 
3Comp. Plut. de Defect. Oracul. chap. 10. 


72 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


on the other hand, wrongly takes it in the sense of “arbitrary assump- 
tion.” —voyodddoxator] Luther’s translation is, ‘“‘ masters of the Scripture” 
(and similar explanations are given; Heinrichs has “ teachers’’); but this 
does not give the full force of véuoc. By véuog we must of course understand 
the Mosaic law, though it does not follow that the heretics here were 
Judaizers such as those against whom Paul contends in the Epistles to 
the Romans and to the Galatians: they might rather be men who acquired 
the name by laying down arbitrary commands in their interpretations of 
the law, and calling these the right knowledge of the law. Baur’s theory, 
that Paul gave this name to the heretics because of their antinomianism, 
is quite arbitrary, and contrary to the natural meaning of the words. De 
Wette rightly disproves this by referring to Tit.i.14, from which it is 
abundantly clear that the heretics made it their business to lay down arbi- 
trary commands. Baur’s appeal to ver. 8, according to which he thinks 
the heretics must have declared that the law was not good, must decidedly 
be rejected, since the idea is only an arbitrary importation into ver. 8.2— 
pi voovvtec] This participle expresses contrast (Leo : quamquam ignorant), 
“without, however, understanding.” The object of vootvrec is given in a 
sentence of two clauses: pyre... ware. The first: pare & Aéyovor, is clear 
in itself; the second: ware rept tive diaBeBaovvra, has been variously ex- 
plained. Most find the difference between the clauses to lie in this, that 
the one refers to the utterances themselves, the other to things of which 
the utterance was made, i.e. to the subject-matter of the doctrine (so 
Raphelius, Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee, Hofmann). De 
Wette, again, thinks that this explanation rests on a grammatical error, 
and that “epi rivev does not refer to the things of which corroboratory 
assertions were made, but to these assertions themselves” (Luther: what 
they say or what they suppose). In support of this opinion de Wette wrongly 
appeals to Tit. 111. 8.4 He is wrong, too, in translating d:aBeB. by “ cor- 
roborate ;” it means rather: “give full assurance.” Hofmann says, “to 
express oneself with confidence regarding anything.” The expression is 
quite general, and Mack seems to be arbitrary in limiting the thought by 
explaining how 4 Zey. refers to expressions in the law brought forward as 
proofs of assertions with which they had no real connection, and cep? riv. 
Be. to those assertions for which proofs out of the law were given, and 
which in themselves had no meaning. Paul merely says that the voyodsda- 
oxadoe possessed no insight into the nature of the law, and hence they 
made assertions regarding it which were not understood even by themselves.‘ 


1Hofmann’s reason for this explanation is, gospel.” In this explanation he overlooks 


that “vouodidacxador., Who make the law of 
Israel the subject of their instruction, have 
no. business in the chureh of the gospel.” 
This is altogether wrong, as may be seen when, 
further on, Paul appears as a vouodidacKados. 

2Contrary to the train of thought, yan Oos- 
terzee remarks on vopodidackador: “notin a 
good, rather in a bad, non-evangelical mean- 
ing of this word; men who mixed up law and 


the OéAovres eivat. 

’The classical usage is against de Wette’s 
explanation; comp. Plutarch, Fabii Vita, 
chap. 14: dcaBeBarovmevos rept Toy TpayLaTwv; 
Polyb. xii. 12. 6: Stopugomevos cai dcaBeBacovpme- 
vos TEpt TOUTWY. 

4On the conjunction of the relative and ine 
terrogative pronouns @... tivwyv, see Winer 
p. 159 [E. T. p. 169]. 


CHAP. I. 8—10. te 


Ver. 8. In contrast with the heretics’ advocacy of the law, the apostle, 
in what follows, states its real value. [III ¢, d.J—Oidayev 6é, bre «.7.A.] Baur 
wrongly infers from these words that the heretics, as Antinomians, had no 
desire to vindicate the law as good. It is not these first words, but the 
words édv Tuc «.7.2., that are directed against the heretics. In spite of Hof- 
mann’s denial, oidayev dé stands in a concessive sense, (Wiesinger), as in 
Rom. vii. 14, 1 Cor. viii. 1, the apostle making an acknowledgment which 
is restricted by édv ric «.7.A.; still we cannot translate it simply by concedi- 
mus, as Heinrichs does.—xatd¢e 6 véuoc] By véuoc we must understand, 
neither the Christian moral law, nor a single part of the Mosaic law, but 
the latter as a whole. It is of the entire Mosaic law in its existing form ag 
a revelation of the divine will given in a system of written commands—it 
is of this that Paul uses xadé¢ as a suitable epithet. It is not enough 
to take xadéc as equivalent to agéAywoc (Theodoret), though the idea 
of usefulness is included in it; «a%é¢ denotes generally the internal 
excellence of the law, just as the same is set forth in still more signifi- 
cant expressions in Rom. vii. 12,14. But the good and excellent quali- 
ties of the law depend on its being applied according to its nature 
and signification : when applied otherwise, it ceases to be xadéc. Hence 
Paul, in opposition to the heretics, adds: éav tie ait vouinwc ypita. The 
vouiuwc, Which is clearly a play on words with vdu0c, only expresses the 
formal relation; we can only infer from the thoughts that follow what 
is meant by the lawful use of law.1 De Wette rightly remarks: “ There 
is in this passage nothing but what the words really say, that the Chris- 
tian teacher must not uphold the law as binding on the dikasoc.” While 
nearly all expositors understand by zc the Christian as such, Bengel 
remarks: Paulus hoc loco non de auditore legis, sed de doctore loquitur ; 
in this he is right, as is acknowledged also by de Wette, Wiesinger, van 
Oosterzee, Hofmann. Paul says nothing here as to how the law is to 
be obeyed, but rather he tells us how it is to be made use of by Christian 
teachers. 

Vv. 9, 10. Hidde roito] is not to be referred to cidayev, but to rue, 7. e. to 
the teacher of the church., The use of the same verb is against the con- 
struction with oidawev. As to the meaning of the word, it is to be observed 
that here, as in many other passages of the N. T., it expresses not only the 
idea of knowing, but also that of “weighing, considering.” De Wette 
says, “as he knows and considers.” The law is rightly used only when 
it is considered that, ete.—éri dixaiw véuo¢ ov xeirat] [III e.] We may, with 
Hofmann, take this sentence quite generally, so as to understand by 
véuoc not any special law, but law in general, and by dikasog any one who 
does rightly, ice, and not for the law’s sake2 In that case we would 
have the same thought here as in Antiph. ad Stobaewm, 9: 6 undéiv adixav 





1 Most expositors have on this passage told _ place, since there is no ground for them in 
us wherein consisted the material advantage the apostle’s words. 
_ of the law; but however correct their state- 2Theophyiact: os 8’ aito rd Kadov Thy Te 
ments in themselves may be, they are out of TOVyplay Let Kal THY apeTHY TEepLTTVGCETEL, 


74 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


ovdevoc deitat véuov.i—The sentence, however, may also be taken in such a 
way as to make véuoc the Mosaic law (notwithstanding the omission of the 
article; comp. Rom. 1. 12, 14, 23, al.), and dixawe the righteous man in 
the specially Christian sense, 7. e. the man who, in faith as a child of God, 
fulfills the divine will in the free obedience of the spirit. In that case we 
have here the thought which forms the fundamental idea of Paul’s view 
regarding the relations of the Christian to the law (comp. Rom. vi. 14; 
Gal. v. 18, al.). As Paul in ver. 11 appeals to the gospel entrusted 
to him for confirmation of the thought expressed in this verse, the con- 
nection of ideas decidedly favors the latter view, which is adopted also by 
Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Van Oosterzee, et, al.—xeitac] has not, as 
Heydenreich thinks probable, the additional notion of an oppressive bur- 
den; véuoc keirac Simply means, according to a usage current even in pro- 
fane writings: ‘the law is given, exists.” Otto rightly remarks: “the 
vouoc Keiwevog is One Which has not only been given, but is still valid.” 
The collocation does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; comp., however, 
Luke i. 34 (Phil. i. 16); 1 Thess. 11. 3; especially also 2 Mace. iv. 11.—If 
the law was not given for the diac (as the heretics falsely maintained), 
then it is valid only for the ddccoc. This thought Paul emphasizes by 
pointing out the nature of the dducog In various aspects, mentioning them 
at first in pairs.—davouole dé kat avurordxtowc] These two ideas, which express 
the most decided contrast, are rightly placed first. “Avoyos, in 1 Cor. ix. 21, 
means the heathen (Rom. 11. 14: v7 ra py} vénov Eyovra); but here it means 
those who withstand the law, who do not serve the law, but their own 
pleasure; comp. Mark xv. 28.—To this corresponds the following avuzé- 
vaxrot (only here and in Tit. 1. 6,10; comp. Heb. ii. 8), as a designation of 
those who submit themselves to no higher will, no higher order. It is 
quite arbitrary, with Tittmann and Leo, to refer avou. to divine, and avour. 
to human ordinances.—aceBéou kai duaptwdoic| These ideas (found together 
also in 1 Pet. iv. 18 and in Wisd. xli. 5) are distinguished from the fore- 
going by a more definite reference to God ; aceBjce (used by Paul only here 
and in Rom. iv. 5, v. 6) is the man who does not stand in awe, who hasno 
holy awe of God in his heart.—davocioue kai BeBHrow | give prominence to the 
opposition to what is holy. ’Avécie (againin 2 Tim. iii. 2), when joined 
with doef in the classical usage, refers.to the injury of human rights. 
This distinction, however, cannot here be pressed. » Bé87A0c, which occurs 
only in the Epistles to Timothy and in Heb. xii. 16 (the verb 887260 in 
Matt. xii. 5; Acts xxiv. 6), is synonymous with davéowc. In these first three 
pairs the dd:co. are characterized as those who stand opposed to what is 
divine, recognizing no divine law, and having no awe of God, and whose 
life is not consecrated by communion with God.—The ideas that follow 
refer, on the other hand, to our relations with our neighbor.—zarpaddgate Kai 
untpaardsac] only here in N. T.: parricides and matricides. Hesychius 
explains them: 6 rév rarépa atiudlov, Tixtwr,  Kteivov; and similarly Mat- 


1Comp. also the expression of Socrates in 2Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 8. 13: aveBearépovs 
Clemens Alex. Stromata, iv. 678; vouov Evexev  Tepi Oeovs, Kai avogiwTépous Tepi ouyyeveis. 
aya0av ovK av yeverOat. 


CHAP, i 11. 716 


thies: “those who actually assault father and mother.” As the word 
occurs in this wider sense in Demosth. 752, 14; Lys. 348, ult.; Plato, 
Phaed. chap. 62, it may be so taken here. At least we cannot, with de 
Wette, quote the following avdpodévorg as a cogent reason against it— 
ardpogdvorc] 2 Mace. ix. 28; drag Aeyéu. in N. T.; the compound is selected 
to correspond with the previous words.—répvoie, dpoevoxoitac] refer to 
unchastity, the one towards the female, the other towards the male sex; 
for this latter, comp. Rom. 1. 27; 1 Cor. vi. 9.—avdparodioraic] The Scho- 
liast on Aristoph. Plut. v. 521, says: sipyta: avdparodiotig rapa 7d avdpa 
arodidocba, tovtéote TwAeiv. This crime is often mentioned in Greek 
authors; but also in Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7.—weboraic, éxvdpxore] stand 
both in opposition to truthfulness ; éxiopxog is one who wantonly breaks 
an oath, as well as one who swears something false-—We cannot help see- 
ing that in enumerating these various classes of the advo, the apostle has 
had the Decalogue in mind, not adhering to it strictly, but partly extend- 
ing, partly limiting it, still without departing from its order—In order to 
describe the dadvxia as a whole, the apostle adds: kai ei te érepov tH bytarvobon 
diWackakia avtixerraz.—The expression 7 byiaiv. didack. is one of those which 
only occur in the Pastoral Epistles, and help to give them a peculiar 
impress; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. ii. 1, 1. 9—In 1 Tim. vi. 3 and in 2 Tim. 
i. 18, we have byaivovtes Adyor; in Tit. 11. 8, Adyoe bye. In these epistles 
byaivery is even used figuratively in another connection ; thus Tit. i. 18, 11. 
2 (voceiv in opposite sense, 1°Tim. vi. 4); elsewhere in the N. T. it occurs 
only in its proper meaning. The expression diWackadia is particularly 
frequent in these epistles, sometimes denoting “the doctrine” (so here) in 
the objective sense, sometimes subjectively, “the teaching” (comp. chap. 
iv. 1, 6, 13, 16, al. ; 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 3; Tit. 1. 9 ff.).—He lays emphasis on 
sound doctrine, as opposed to the pataodoyia of the heretics. Luther 
translates dy:aivovca inaccurately by “wholesome ;” the wholesomeness is 
only the result of the soundness. By 7 by:aiv. did. is here meant the pure 
gospel, free from all foreign admixture, having nothing unclean or sickly 
init. The apostle here is certainly thinking chiefly of the ethical side of 
the didack.; still Leo is wrong in translating it “sound morality.” By the 
form ei... avrixecrac Paul gives us to understand that there are indeed 
other forms and shapes of unrighteousness, incompatible with the pure 
doctrine of the gospel. The neuter form ti érepov is strange. In expla- 
nation, we might appeal to passages like 1 Cor. 1.17, Heb. vii. 7, and 
others, where the neuter denotes persons; but the use of the verb 
avrikerrae is against this. It is better to regard it as a transition from per- 
sons to things.! 

Ver. 11. Kara 7d evayyéuov x.7.4.] may be joined with avrixecra:, so far as 
the grammar goes; but the thought is against this, since the by:aiv. didack. 
is simply the doctrine of the gospel, and the whole of the added clause 
would be very slipshod. There is as little ground for joining it with 


1As Wiesinger rightly remarks, vv. 9 and such as consider the law a means of attaining 
10 show that the apostle is not contending to a still higher moral perfection.” 
‘here against actual Judaizers, but “against 


76 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


didackazia, as Was done by Theophylact (ri by. 6., ri obon Kara 7d ebayy.) and 
approved by many later expositors. The only right construction is to 
refer this addition to the whole of the preceding thonght (Wiesinger, Platt, 
van Oosterzee, Hofmann), so as to bring the thought to a concluding 
point. Similarly in Rom. ii. 16, cava 7d evayy. is joined with what precedes. 
The apostle asserts thereby that his doctrine regarding the law is not 
founded on his own private opinion, but on the gospel entrusted to him. 
In order to make its authority plainer asa rule of life, he describes it 
as 7d evayyéhuov the dbEy¢ Tov pakapiov Ocov (de Wette, Matthies)—The 
genitive rie ddE7¢ is not to be interpreted by the adjective évdogoc, and 
then joined with 7d evayy. (=7d ebayy. évdofov; Luther: “according to 
the glorious gospel”), or even with ®zod (Heinrichs: = tov paxapiov kat 
évddgov Ocov); the genitive saould rather be allowed to retain its special 
meaning. ‘H d6fa tov Oot may be the glory of the Christians, which is given 
them by God.! It is more natural, however, to understand the expres- 
sion here, as in 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6, Rom. ix. 23, etc., of the glory dwelling in 
God, peculiar to Him, “revealed to the world in Jesus Christ” (Wiesinger). 
The relation of the genitive tij¢ déEx¢ to 76 ebayyédvov is not to be taken to 
mean that the déga was declared to be the ground of the gospel (the 
gospel proceeding from the glory of God); the déga is rather contained 
in the gospel (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt), so that it is thereby 
revealed and communicated to men.—God’s nature is here described 
more precisely by the adjective yaxap/ov, by which still greater emphasis 
is laid on God’s défa, manifesting itself in the gospel in its peculiar power. 
Though the word is not foreign to the N. T., it is used only here and in 
vi. 15 as an attribute of God. It is not improbable that the apostle uses 
it with some reference to the heretics. If, in ver. 4, we are to understand 
by the genealogies, series of aeons emanating from God, he might readily 
use paxdpioc of God in order to mark the divine unity, for holiness excludes 
all division of nature. Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that God is here 
called paxdpioc, not only because He has 76 waxdpiov in His nature dia rH 
atperrérntoc, but also because out of His grace He imparts it to us.?- ‘The 
words that follow declare that the gospel was entrusted to the apostle: 
6 ériotebOny éyo (Tit. 1.3). Regarding the construction of these words, cf. 
Buttmann, Gr. Gram. 3121.7; Winer, p. 244 [E. T.p. 260]. The same 
construction is found in Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. 11. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 
17. It is to be observed that this construction of the verb oretecfu, apart 


1Gomp. Rom. vy. 2. Wegscheider: “accord- blessed God? God is not blessed if He is for 


ing to the gladdening doctrine of the salva- 
tion which the blessed God imparts to us;” 
Theodoret: evayy. d6&ns TO Kipvypa KeKxAnKev, 
amevdav Thy wéAAovoay okay emayyeAAeTat TOLS 
meorevovor, and Theophylact. 

2Otto takes the reference otherwise. He 
refers the word to the’ heretics, inasmuch as 
they taught the eternal continuance of the 
law: “The eternal continuance of the law 
presupposes a godlessness that cannot be 
amended, And these vopodidacxadcr teach a 


ever afHicted with those opposed to Himself, 
with the avouots «.7.A. I teach that God got 
rid of this opposition by reconciling the world 
to Himself, and that we have indeed a blessed 
God.” Hofmann refers paxapiov to this, that 
the heretics “make the law the subject of their 
instruction in the place where there should 
only be preached the things by which God 
has glorified His blessedness.” In any ease, 
Paul chose the attribute, because the heresy 
stood in contradiction to God's blessedness. 


‘ 


CHAP, 1 12: Ti. 


from the Pastoral Epistles, occurs only in the epistles of Paul, and only 
where he speaks of the gospel, or the office given him to hold.! 

Ver. 12. [On Vv. 12-17,see Note IV., pages 90, 91.] After pointing.in these 
last words to his personal relation to the gospel, the apostle, down to ver. 
17, describes the grace experienced by him, not merely “to let it be seen 
what assurance he had for his gospel” (Wiesinger), but also to prove by 
his own example (pic brorizwow x.7.2. ver. 16) the glory of the gospel 
entrusted to him as the evayy. tie 66En¢ Tov paxapiov Ocov. There is therefore 
no ground for de Wette’s criticism, “that the self-styled apostle lets fall 
here the thread of his meaning, that he may not have to take it up 
again.” This section is in the closest connection with the preceding one, 
since it shows how deep is the contrast between the heresy and the gospel. 
The heresy, on the one hand, takes up unfruitful speculations, and, when- 
ever it wishes to become practical, it places the Christian in bondage to 
the law. The one thing which is all-important, the forgiveness of sins, 
it does not assure, and hence it does not know the compassion of the 
Lord. On the contrary, it is of the very essence of the gospel to reveal this 
compassion ; and in proof of this, Paul appeals to his own experience. 
[IV a, b.|—yapw éyo] We have the same expression in 2 Tim. i. 3 (comp. 
also Luke xvii. 9; Heb. xii. 28); and in the other Pauline Epistles we 
have instead : ebyapicté.— 76 évdvvaudcarri pe] must not be limited to the 
strength granted for enduring afflictions and sufferings; it is rather to be 
applied to his whole work as an apostle. The proper reason of thanks- 
giving is only furnished by the clause that follows 67 «.7.2.; but an additional 
reason is given in this participle.2—Xp.o76 ’ Ijood «.7.2..] is not to be explained, 
according to some older expositors: “qui me potentem reddidit Christo,” 
for Christ, but as a dative closely belonging to the verb.—ér. morév we 
nyqoato| [IV ¢.] xioré¢ corresponds with the following d:axovia. The reason 
of his thanksgiving is Christ’s confidence in him that he would become a 
faithful dcdkovoc. This confidence the Lord has shown by committing to 
him the ministry of the gospel, hence he adds: 
is either “placing me in the ministry ” (Heydenreich, van Oosterzee, Hof- 
mann), or “setting me apart for the ministry’ (de Wette, Plitt, Winer). 
The latter seems to be more in accordance with the usage of the N. T.; 
comp. 1 Thess. v.9. De Wette rightly remarks that the participle does not 
stand for &¢ rifeofai we, nor is it to be taken as a pluperfect ; it is simply the 
proof of xorév jie jy.; see also Winer, p. 326 [E.T. p. 348].—If the apostle’s 
thanks are due to the Lord on the general ground of His confidence, they 
are all the more due that he had been before an opponent of the gospel ; 
to this the next verse points. 


Géuevoc cic dvaxoviav, Which 


1 We need not be surprised that here, and 
somewhat frequently in the Pastoral Epistles, 
Paul directs attention to himself and his office, 
if only we reflect that the apostle was fully con- 
scious of his position towards the development 
of God’s kingdom, and that he was bound, 
therefore, to vindicate fully the principle of 
the Christian life which he had enounced. 


2According to the reading of &: evéduva- 
povrvte without ue is to be taken as asimple at- 
tribute: “ Christ Jesus who bestows strength.” 

3 Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 25; yvwpny dé didwuc ws nden- 
évos Uo KuUplov muaTOs eivar. Paul gives the 
nature.of this écaxovia in Acts xx. 24: 7 dtaxo- 
via nv éAaBov mapa Tov Kuptov “Ingov, dcapap- 
TUpacOau To evayyeALov THS XapLTos TOD Meov. 


78 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Ver. 18. Td xpérepov dvra BAdognuov K.7.A] Td mpdrepov is equivalent to the 
adverb xpérepov, just as, in Matt. xxvi. 45, 76 Aouréy is equivalent to Aourév. 
The participle stands here in the relation of contrast to what precedes: 
“though I was before,” or “I who was nevertheless.” —2ac¢npuov] only here 
as a substantive; comp. on this Acts xxvi.11. For the most part, the 
idea of BAaconuia is used in reference to what is divine (Suidas: 7 eic Gedv 
iBpic).—kai dvdxtyv] Leo says: “ Paulus non dictis tantum sed etiam factis 
furuerat in Christianos;” the word occurs only here in the N. T.; on the 
subject-matter, comp. Acts xxii. 4; Gal. 1. 18.—«ai iBpictpv] also in Rom. 
i. 30. Luther translates “reviler,” but Wegscheider: “one who does 
violence.” Neither translation expresses the full meaning as it is ‘given in 
Tittmann’s (Syn. p. 74) explanation: “qui prae superbia non solum con- 
temnit alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractat, et injuriis afficit.” ‘YBpivew 
denotes the arrogant conduct of another, whether in words or in actions. 
—The context leads us to think of Christ’s work, or Christ Himself, as the 
object of the apostle’s blasphemy.—Having judged his former conduct in 
straightforward fashion, Paul goes on to contrast with it the grace of the 
Lord: aAw 7Are_byv, adding, however, by way of explanation: 67 ayvoov 
De Wette is not correct in supposing that the intended 
aim of these words is to furnish some excuse for himself.\—72«747v | (Luther: 
“to my lot did compassion fall’’) is not to be limited to the pardon of his 
persecuting fury (Matthies: “to me was my mad eagerness in persecu- 
tion most graciously forgiven”), but should be taken more generally of 
the grace imparted to the apostle.,—ayvoér] (comp. Rom. x. 2: ZyAov Ceov 
Eywr, GAA ov Kar’ éxiyvwou’), 7. e. Without knowing how grievously I sinned 
therein. The reason of. this unconsciousness was év azotia. Mack is 
wrong in inverting the relation, as if the apostle added év azoria to explain 
How far the azioria was one to be blamed, Paul does not here 
say: the idea is to be taken in its purely negative form. It was not this, 
but the ayvoa grounded on it, which lessened his guilt. 

Ver. 14. The last words might be so explained as to weaken seemingly 
the divine grace; and therefore the apostle feels bound to set forth its 
abundant riches.—ireperiedvace d& 1) yapic x.7.A.] The verb imeprAeovacew 
only occurs here in the N. T., and is not current in classical Greek. The 
simple wAcovafew, with the classic writers, means: ‘to be more, 7. e. than 
the measure demands, therefore to go beyond the measure;” but in 
several passages of the N. T. it has clearly the meaning: “become more, 
therefore increase, grow larger.” Comp. 2 Thess. i. 3 (synon. with 
trepaveaverv); Rom. v. 20, vi. 1 (Meyer: accumulate); so also Phil. iv. 17 
and 2 Cor. iv. 15 (Meyer has there: “become abundant .. . increase,” and 


éroinoa év amiotia. 


his éyvora. 


cedes in ver. 12 might seem to support this, 
but what follows is entirely against such a 
limitation of the thought. 

_Hofmann wrongly taixes €v amortia as in 
pure apposition to the participle ayvooy, and 


1 Wiesinger: “The words are not intended 
to exculpate his acts, but to explain wherein 
the power of divine grace began to work on 
him.” Similarly Plitt, van Oosterzee, and 
others. 


2Otto wrongly finds in nAe7Onv a special 
reference to the fact that Paul “ was entrusted 
with the ministry of the word.”"—What pre- 


maintains that ayvoety is not always an igno- 
rance which simply does not even know, but 
a misconception of something which it should 


CHAP! a, 13s 14: 79 


here: “be increased”). The prefix izep serves, with Paul, to strengthen 
the idea with which it is joined; thus érepavéaver, 2 Thess.i.3; trepextepicood, 
Eph. iii. 20; trepaiav, 2 Cor. xi. 5, al. In Rom. v. 20, ireperepiocevoev seems 
to mean that the éxjedvacev 7) duaptia was surpassed by the yapic (So Meyer; 
Hofmann differs). If we assume here this reference of surpassing, we 
cannot regard 7Ae/yv as the thing surpassed. For yapic cannot be 
regarded as something surpassing. é/eo¢ ;' but iep in that case would have 
to be referred to 1d mpédrepov bvta BAaodyuov K.7.A. Hence the apostle’s 
meaning in ireper/edvacev would be that grace was manifested to him in 
abundant measure, far surpassing his enmity (so in a former edition of 
this commentary); but in that case aaa 7AenOyv «.7.2. would be parenthet- 
ical. It is more correct not to assume such a reference here, but to 
explain tirepricovafew: “to go (abundantly) beyond the measure”’ (Plitt, 
van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle added tzeperA. 7) yapic to HreHfinr, 
because the latter expression did not seem enough to his mind, which was 
penetrated by the unbounded greatness of the grace he had experienced. 
“Tt is as though he wrestles with speech in order to find some sufficient 
expression for the feeling which quite overpowers him” (van Oosterzee). 
The particle dé belongs to the relation of climax existing between the two 
clauses, as in Heb. xii. 6; it corresponds to the English yea or aye in a 
climax.2—peta riotewe Kai ayaryc] [IV d.] The preposition werd with the 
genitive serves to connect the fact with the points that accompany it. 
Miorre and ayazy therefore are, properly speaking, not mentioned as results 
of the ydapic, but as blessings immediately connected with ydpic. They 
form, as de Wette says, the subjective side of the condition of grace. Leo 
is right, therefore, in saying: “verbis werd «.7.2. indicatur, 7. «. ay. quasi 
comites fuisse illius ydpitoc”’ (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee); but he is 
wrong, if he means that Paul added these words to tell in what the grace 
was manifested as izeprAcovafovea.—By riotic k. ay. 7 év Xp.’I. we are not 
to understand God’s faithfulness and love in Christ, nor the apostle’s 
endeavor to bring others to faith and love; nor, again, is év to be explained 
by ova or by ec. The words rye év Xp. I. are added to tHe ayaryc, and mark 
the love as one “ that has its ground and middle-point in Christ” (Matthies); 
ef. 2 Tim. 1.18. It is doubtful whether the addition is to be referred also 
to riotewc (for this Matthies, Plitt, van Oosterzee; against it, Hofmann) ; 
since xistewe does not properly require it, it might be better to limit the 
reference to ayér7c.3 “Tn contrasting his former azoria with his present 


have known. But this more precise refer- 
ence is clearly not contained inthe words 


2Hofmann explains é€ as ranking another 
fact with the one already mentioned; but in 


themselves. 

1Chrysostom : ovK éeTimwpyOynv? HAenOnv yap, 
ap’ ovv TOUTO MOVOY, Kal “éxpL TOUTOV 6 EA€EOs, 
Tov wy Sovvat Tinwpiav; ovdaua@s* adAa Kal 
Etepa moda kat peyada, dca TOUTO Pyaiv’ UreE- 
pemA: 7 xapts, SyA@v, OTL UmEpéBn Kal TOV EAcoV 
ta S@pa* Tav’Ta yap ovK eAeovVTOS EoTLY, aAAG 
dtdovvtos Kat ofddpa ayaravtos. Similarly 
Leo. In this view the force of yAey{@yv is 
‘arbitrarily weakened. 


nAenOnv and vreperA. » Xapis we have not two 
different facts, but one and the same fact— 
though expressed in two different ways. 

3 Hofmann alleges against the connection 
with miorews, that “éy would have a different 
meaning when joined with miotews; accord- 
ing to Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4;” but his reason is 
without force, as this other reference is here 
cut off by the intervening ayamns. 


80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


increasing mor x. ay.” (Heydenreich), Paul does not lose sight of the 
heresy which did not effect oixovouia Ozov év rio-e (ver. 4), and had not the 
ayarn (ver. 5) as its goal. 

Ver. 15. Muord¢g 6 Adyog «.7.4.] [IV e.] With this formula, which is pecu- 
liar to the Pastoral Epistles (found besides here in iii. 1, iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 
11; Tit. ii. 8; only m Rev. is there a similar formula: otto: of Adyo mioroi 
cai aAnGivot eiot, XX1, 5, XXil. 6), the apostle introduces the general thought 
whose truth he had himself experienced.—«ai raon¢ arodoyqe asic] This 
addition is also iniy. 9; the word azodoyf4 occurs nowhere else in the N. T. 
(comp. azédextoc, ii. 3, v. 4). As Raphelius has shown by many proofs 
from Polybius, it is synonymous in later Greek with xiore: the verb 
arodéxecbar (“ receive believing”) is used in the same sense in Acts ii. 41. 
The adjective raoyc describes the axodoy# of which the word is worthy, as 
one complete and excluding all doubt.—érz Xp. ’Ijo. 7AOev sig tov Kéopov] 
This expression, found especially in John, may be explained from the 
saying of Christ: é§7A00v mapa tov ratpic Kai éAfAvba sic Tov Kéowov, John 
Xv1. 28, xéooc having here a physical, not an ethical meaning: “the 
earthly world.”—Ayaprodoi stands here in a general sense, and is not 
with Stolz to be limited to the opponents of Christianity, nor with 
Michaelis to the heathen. As little can the idea of céoa be limited in the 
one direction or the other. After this general thought, that the aim of 
Christ’s coming is none other than the cwrypia of sinners, the apostle 
returns to his own case, adding, in consciousness of his guilt (ver. 18): dv 
mpardg eime éyo, “of whom Iam first.” [IV f.] Paul says this, conscious 
of his former determined hostility to Christ when he was a B/dodyyog K.7.A. 
(ver. 15), and considering himself at the same time as standing at the 
head of sinners. It is inaccurate to translate tparo¢ without qualification 
by “the foremost” (in opposition to Wiesinger and others). Even in Mark 
Xl. 28, 29, rpory ravtwv évtoAg is the commandment which stands at the 
head of all, is first in the list, and devrépa is the one following. In order 
to. qualify the thought, Flatt wishes to translate zparoc by “one of the 
foremost,” which he thinks he can justify-by the absence of the article. 
Wegscheider, again, wishes not to refer dv to duaprwAotc, but to supply 
owlonévwv OY ceowsuévov; and similarly Mack explains év by “of which 
saved sinners.” All these expositions are, however, to be rejected as pieces 
of ingenuity. The thought needs no qualification—at least not for any 
one who can sympathize with the apostle’s strong feeling. The apostle 
does not overstep the bounds of humility in what he says in 1 Cor. xv. 9 
and Eph. iii. 8; neither does he overstep them here. 

Ver. 16. After calling himself the first of sinners, Paul gives the reason 
why he, this foremost sinner, found grace. He begins with 44d, since it 
must appear strange that grace was imparted to him.—d:d rovro AAeHOyv] 
De Wette says: “therefor (to this end) did I receive grace.”—iva év éoi 
tTpatw évdeiEnrar Xp. "I. tiv aracav paxpobvuiav.—év éu. mp.] stands first for 
de sake of emphasis; év is not equivalent to “by means of,” but to “in 
the case of” (comp. Rom. vii. 19). To supply auapro26 with mpdérw (first 
ed. of this commentary, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others) is arbitrary. 


CHAP. L. 15-17. 81 


There is no need to supply anything. The thought is: “in my case, 
Christ first showed His entire jaxpofyyia.”! Paul says this, meaning that 
the entire fullness of Christ’s yaxpo$uia (Buttmann, p. 105 [E. T. 120]) 
could not be shown to those who before had received grace, because they 
had not cherished such decided enmity to Christ as he. The zporw there- 
fore has Gracav corresponding with it; the greater the guilt, the greater 
the manifestation of yaxpouuia: Bengel says: “cunctam longanimitatem : 
quum minores peccatores etiam mensura quasi minor possit restituere.” 
It is not necessary to give the word paxpotyyia the meaning here of “mag- 
nanimity”). (Heydenreich, Matthies: “long-suffering or magnanimity”). 
The apostle here regards the love of the Lord as not causing judgment to 
follow straight on condemnation, but as patient, and granting space for 
conversion. In this Paul has given the purpose of his pardon; but he 
states it still more definitely in the words that follow: mpé¢ trotitwow Tov 
perdovtov moteverr éx’ ato. The expression imorimwo, “likeness, image,” 
occurs elsewhere only in 2 Tim. i. 18; it is synonymous with irdderyua in 
2 Pet. ii. 6, and other passages. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we 
find rioc (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. x. 6, 11; Phil. iii. 17). Leo, without sufficient 
erounds, explains the word by institutio. The idea of type is not contained 
in the word itself, but is here transferred to it from the jue AdévTwv.—mloTebew 
ix’ abt] This construction of the word mretew is found in the N. T. only 
here and in Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, 1 Pet. ii.6; but in all these passages it 
occurs in words quoted from Isa. xxviii. 16, where the LXX. has simply 
§ miorehwv. It may be explained in this way, that faith has confidence as 
its substance and basis. Matthies rightly says: “és air, not so much in 
Him as the object of faith, but rather trusting im faith on Him as the 
absolute basis of our salvation.” —eic Coyv aidéviov] These words are not to 
be joined to the distant izorizwow (Bengel), but to the zoreterv immediately 
preceding. They present the goal towards which the misretew éx’ aire is 
directed (Wiesinger). As Paul usually sets forth his conduct to others as 
a type, so here he gives to his experience a typical meaning for future 
believers? This may be explained from the peculiar and important 
position which he held for the development of God’s kingdom on earth, 
and of which he was distinctly conscious. 

Ver. 17. “Ex sensu gratiae fluit doxologia” (Bengel). With this 
doxology the apostle closes the digression begun in ver. 11, and returns 
again to the proper epistolary style—ro d& Baoiei Tov aévov| [IV g.] 
This designation for God is not found elsewhere in the N. T. (even the use 
of Bacideic of God only occurs elsewhere in chap. vi. 15 and Matt. v. 30), 
but it is found in the Apocrypha of the O. T. in Tob. xiii. 6, 10. (Eeclesias- 
ticus xxxvi. 19: 6 Oed¢ TOV aidvor.) OF aidvec means either “the world,” as 


1Hofmann: “If mpatos before had the way: “The aim is to give a type, not to them, 


meaning of locality, here wpwétw has the 
meaning of time as opposed to Trav pedAAovTwY 
TuoTEveLV.” 

2Hofmann, without grounds, disputes this 
view, and gives the apostle’s thought in this 


6 


but of them; they were to know that they 
had to expect such conversions as his, the 
conversions of revilers and persecutors.” 
But there is no hint whatever of revilers and 
persecutors only in ot seAAovtes TLOTEVELY. 


82 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


in Heb. i. 2, xi. 3 (see Delitzsch and Limemann on this passage), or “ the 
times.” [IV A.] The former meaning is adopted by Chrysostom, Leo, 
etc.!; the latter, by Matthies : “the ruler of all times, so that all generations 
are at the same time concretely included.” Ina similar way, Heydenreich 
has “ the supreme ruler of time, and of all that takes place in its course.” 
This latter explanation is supported as correct both by the preceding 
ueAAbvtwv (van Oosterzee), and also by the ag@aprw following, and by ei¢ 
Tove aidvas tov aidvwv farther on.? It is incorrect to take aidvec as equiva- 
lent to “eternity,” and translate: “to the king eternal” (de Wette, but 
tentatively; Hofmann: “the king who is for ever and without end”’),? for 
aiavec never has that meaning in itself. Only in the formulas azd trav 
aidvev and ei¢ tov¢ aidvac does the meaning of the word approach that 
idea. Besides, the apostle would surely have expressed that adjectival 
idea by an adjective. It is quite erroneous to take the word here in the 
Gnostic sense of series of emanations, synonymous with yeveatoyia in 
ver. 4; for, on the one hand, no proof is given that this expression had 
been already used by the heretics alluded to in this epistle; and, on the 
other, the apostle considered the whole theory of genealogies as belonging 
to the sphere of myths. It was impossible, therefore, for him in his 
doxology to speak of God as the king of things which were to Him nothing 
but the inventions of fancy.—igbaprw] is only used of God elsewhere in 
Rom. i. 23 (Plut. adv. St. 31; Wisd. of Sol. xii. 1). Matthies: “God is the 
Imperishable One, because His nature is unchanging and based on itself,” 
equivalent to 6 pévoc Exywv abavaciar, chap. vi. 16.—daopatw] comp. Heb. xi. 
27 (without 6eéc), Rom. i, 20, and Col. i. 15 (with @edc); equivalent to év eidev 
ovdeic avopdruv, ovdé ideivy divata, Chap. vi. 16; comp. also John i. 18.— 
pévw OeG] chap. vi. 15: pdévoc duvactye ; comp. also John v. 44, xvii. 3; Rom. 
XV1. 27: ydvy co Oc. The words ad6dprw . . . Oe are to be taken as in 
apposition to 76 Baoei. But it is doubtful whether 6e6 is to be joined 
with 46v only, or also with ag@@apr~ and dopatw, as is commonly done. 
De Wette is wrong in asserting that all these predicates are used of God 
superfluously : they’ manifestly express the absolute exaltation of God 
above all conditioned finite being, and are occasioned naturally (which 
Hofmann disputes) by the contrast with the heresy which denied the 
absoluteness of the divine existence.—rij7j Kai d6Ea] The two words are 
united also in Rom. ii. 7, 10; Heb. ii. 7; but only here and in the Apoca- 
lypse do they occur in doxologies. Paul elsewhere uses only défa, and 
always with the article—eic rode aiévac tov aiéver] a very common con- 
clusion in doxologies, and found in Paul’s other epistles. It is not to be 
overlooked that this doxology has a peculiar character distinct from those 
usually occurring in Paul, both in the mode of connection (elsewhere a 
pronoun connects them with what precedes) and also in the designation 
for God and the expressions used. 


1Leo appealing to Eusebius, de Laud. Con- Bacwrei2 mavtwyv Tov aidvev Kai » Seoroteta 
stant. chap. vi. p. 431, ed. Heinrichs: tov péeyav cov év Taon yeveg Kal yeved. 
Tov gUumayTos ai@vos Bac.Aéa. 3 Wiesinger explains it: “He is a king of 


2Comp. Ps. exly. 13, LXX.: 7 Bactdeia cov the aeons, which together give the idea of 


CHAP, I. 18. 83 


Ver. 18. [On Vy. 18-20, see Note V. pages 91, 92.] Paul again addresses 
himself to Timothy direct.—rairyv tiv rapayyediav] [V a.] cannot be 
referred back to iva xapayyeiAnce in ver. 3 (Otto), because there he was 
speaking of a xapayyeAia which Timothy was to receive, here he is speak- 
ing of a mapayyedia to which Timothy was to give heed. Nor can it be 
referred to kafa¢ mapexddeca oe (Plitt), since that denotes only a special 
commission, to which there is here no allusion. Some have therefore 
joined rait7v immediately with the following ia, and taken iva as intro- 
ducing the object... This construction, however, is opposed by the order 
of the words; after the verb and the parenthesis xara ra¢ «.7.2., we no 
longer expect an expansion of the thought contained in ratty r. rap? 
The only course remaining is to agree with Hofmann in referring radr. rt. 
mapayy. back to tig tapayyediag in ver. 5; not, however, agreeing with him 
in interpreting the word here, “the Christian teaching,” but taking it in 
the same sense in both places.—zrapariMeuai oo] comp. 2 Tim. ii. 2. The 
verb is here explained by most expositors, against usage, as equivalent to 
“lay to heart”? (Luther: “order,” in the sense of “recommend to”). 
Otto, and following him Hofmann, took it in the sense of “give some- 
thing into one’s charge,’ which meaning is possible, but not imperative. 
In itself the word means “bring something before one,” and is defined 
more precisely by its context, z.e. the purpose of bringing before is not con- 
tained in the word itself. Waparifecfac tapayyediav may therefore quite 
well mean: propose a command to one, viz. that he may act in accordance 
with it%—réxvov Tyw.] see ver. 1.—xata tag mpoayobcac éxi o& xpogyrteiac] 
[V b.] Before giving the command itself, Paul inserts these words to add 
force to his exhortation ; for they are not (as some expositors, Oecumenius, 
Heumann, Flatt, wish) to be placed after iva in sense, but to be joined 
with maparibeyar.—xard, “in conformity with,” not “justified and occasioned 
by.” —zpoayotoac stands here quite absolutely, with the same meaning as 
in Heb. vii. 18: a6érnow . . . yivetar mpoayobone évroage, “the law that pre- 
ceded ;”’* the xpoay. rpodyr. are accordingly “the promises that preceded.” 
Matthies is wrong in explaining zpodyouca in connection with é7i cé, as 


eternity, just as His kingdom is an everlast- 
ing kingdom.” 

1So0 Chrysostom and Theophylact, Mat- 
thies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee ; 
also in this commentary; comp. Winer, pp. 
314 f. [E. T. p. 334 f]. 

2 Hofmann wrongly maintains that this con- 
struction is impossible in point of language 
* and in point of fact: “in point of language, 
because mapatiGecac does not mean lay to 
heart, but propose, and a command is not pro- 
posed (why not?); in point of fact, because 
what he calls tas mpoayovoas émi oe cannot 
furnish any standard for the apostle’s injune- 
tion to Timothy to discharge his office well” 

(why not?). 

- °8In Matt. xiii. 24, 31, it is joined with mapa- 
Body; it is used of setting forth a doctrine in 


Acts xvii. 3; it is chiefly used of setting forth 
food, as in the N. T. Mark viii. 7; Luke ix. 
16, x. 8, xi. 6; it has the sense of “ committing 
to the care of” in Luke xii. 48. 

4Comp. Linnemann and Delitazsch on the 
passage. Otto is wrong in asserting that 
mpoayery is never used of priority of time. 
While it occurs more frequently in the sense 
of “precede some one,” it has in other pas- 
sages of the N. T. (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark 
vi. 45) the meaning practically of “go before 
some one in any direction whatever,” the 
notion of space manifestly passing into that 
of time. In the passage in Hebrews, Otto 
thinks . that mpoayovoa ought to mean: 
“driving forward from one election of high 
priest to another” (!). 


84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


equivalent to “leading towards thee,” 7.e. “pointing or aiming towards 
thee.” This meaning zpodyew never has; as a transitive verb it certainly 
means: “lead forward to any one;” but this is manifestly a different idea 
from that which Matthies ascribes to it. Otto explains it: “the prophecies 
that guide to thee,” making appeal to Xenophon, Memorab. iv. 1, in which 
passage Kiihner paraphrases mpoayew by viam monstrare. In this case we 
should have to understand it: those among the prophecies that showed 
others the way leading to Timothy, a statement clearly without meaning. 
It is, however, altogether arbitrary when Otto defines the prophecies more 
precisely as those that led to Timothy’s ordination, or occasioned it.—ézi 
cé| is not to be connected with poayotcac, but with mpodyrteiac, as Luther 
rightly translates it : “according to the former prophecies regarding thee ;” 
or de Wette: “in accordance with the preceding prophecies on thee ” (so, 
too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). On the other hand, the 
translation: “ vaticinia olim de te praenuntiata” (Heydenreich), is inac- 
curate. Al él o& mpod. are: the prophecies (expressed) over thee (the 
peculiar meaning of éri as descending to something should not be over- 
looked); while zpoay. describes these as preceding Timothy’s apostleship.’ 
—rpogyteiac| Chrysostom: 1d tHe diWacKakiacg Kai iepwobvyc agiwpa, péya bv, 
The Tov Oeov deitac Whdov ... dua TO Tadaioy ard THC TpodyTeiag yivovtat oi 
iepeic, Tovréote ard mvetuatoc dyiov. Obrwo 6 Tim. ypéOy. This is wrong, 
simply because Timothy’s office was not a priestly one. It is quite arbi- 
trary to translate mpogyteiae by: “doctrines, exhortations,” or “ hopes,” or 
“good testimonies’ (Heinrichs: “by means of the good hope and expec- 
tation which every one cherished regarding thee”). IIpogyreiae here, as 
always, are utterances proceeding from the Holy Spirit, whatever be their 
contents or their occasion; here it is most natural to think of prophecies 
made when the éxifeouw tov yepov tov rpecButepiov (chap. iv. 14) was 
imparted to Timothy and made regarding his worthy discharge of the 
office (Wiesinger).?—iva orpateby év avtaic tiv Kadqv otpareiav] [V c.] Pur- 
pose of the raparifeuai oor. rpareia (elsewhere only in 2 Cor. x. 4) is 
frequently translated: inaccurately by “fight;’? Luther is more correct: 
“that thou mayest exercise in it a gdod knighthood.”  Xrpareia denotes the 
entire warfare; the only thing wrong in Luther’s translation is the indefi- 
nite article. Though the Christian calling is not seldom deseribed as a 
warfare, yet here the word is used specially of Timothy’s office, in which 
he had to contend against the érepodidacxadoivrec (vv. 3 ff.).3 De Wette 
inaccurately explains it: “that thou conduct thyself worthily and bravely 


1Jn taking the words thus: at émi oé irpo- 2According to Hofmann, they were pro- 


ontecar, there is not, as Otto maintains, a 
change of order not occurring in Greek; 
comp. 2 Cor. vili. 2: 9 cata BaBovs mTwxeta 
It is also wrong to say that the prepo- 
sitional clause must flow from the substan- 
tive, and that wepi, therefore, should stand 
here for émi. In the passage quoted, cata 
manifestly does not flow from the idea of the 
substantive mrw ela. 


auTov. 


phecies “which had promised to Paul that 
Timothy would be a true servant of the 
gospel, and had confirmed him in his choice 
when he assumed Timothy as his colleague 
in the apostleship.” 

3 Manifestly Paul here returns to vv. 3ff.,and 
so far gives reason for saying that here “we 
have not in form but in substance ” the apod- 
osis which was wanting before (Wiesinger). | 


CHMPT TLS; 20) 85 


in the discharge of thy evangelic duty ;” as if the words were: iva xaéc 
otpar. T7v orpareiav. The chief accent rests on év airaic, not on Kadgv; the 
orpareia assigned to Timothy is in itself xa4#, quite apart from his behavior 
m it.—év airaic] According to Matthies, Winer (p. 362 [E. T. p. 387]), 
Wiesinger, Otto, and others, Paul conceives the rpogyreia as an armor 
round Timothy: “as though equipped with them;” it might, however, 
be more natural to translate: “within them,” i.e. in their limits, not 
exceeding them. The interpretation: in accordance with them (van Ooster- 
zee, Hofmann: “the prophecies are to be regarded as a rule of conduct es 
is against the usage of the N. T. 

Ver. 19. The manner in which Timothy is to discharge his office, is 
given still more precisely in the words éywv riorw Kai ayabiv ovveidnow. It 
is difficult to bring éyev into direct connection with the preceding figure 
otpareia (Matthies: “hold fast the faith which elsewhere, in Eph. vi. 16, is 
called a shield, a weapon of defence in our warfare;”’ Otto thinks that Paul 
conceives ior and ay. ovveidnowe as “the contending power which the 
general commands, 7.e. as his troops!”). It is simply “holding, main- 
taining” (de Wette), i.e. not denying. The reason for the collocation 
peculiar to this epistle of rior and ayaby cvveidyow, and for the strong 
emphasis laid on the latter idea (comp. ver. 5, iv. 2, etc.), is, that the 
apostle regards the denial of the ay. ovveid. as the source of the heresy. 
This is proved by the words that follow, in which Paul returns to the 
mention of the heretics: gv (viz. dyabjv ovveidyow) twee (comp. ver. 6) [V d.? 
—arwcapevo.] This expression, not strange (de Wette) but suitable, denotes 
the “ wantonness ” (de Wette) with which the heretics sacrificed the good 
conscience to their selfish purposes.'—repi tiv riotw évavdyyoay] vavayeiv 
occurs only here in a figurative sense. Ilepi gives the matter in which 
they had made shipwreck, i.e. suffered loss. Tepi with the accusative, 
equivalent to quod attinet ad, is found in the N. T. only in the Pastoral 
Epistles; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4,21; 2 Tim. ii. 18, iii. 8; Tit. ii. 7; see Winer, 
p. 379 [E. T. p. 406]. 

Ver. 20. "Qv éoriv ‘Ypévacoc kai ’AAEavdpoc] In 2 Tim. ii. 17, the apostle 
names two false teachers-whose words eat like a cancer—Hymenaeus and 
Philetus. There is no ground for distinguishing between the Hymenaeus 
there and the one here mentioned. No difficulty is caused even by the 
fact that “the one here is mentioned as a man cast out from the church, 
and the other merely as an example of error” (de Wette) ; for Hymenaeus 
and Philetus are not so tenderly dealt with in the other passages as de 
Wette seems to think. As to Alexander, we must leave it unsettled 
whether he is the same as the one mentioned in 2 Tim. iv.14. The 
reasons are not decisive which seem to tell against the identity, viz. that 
in the other passage the surname 6 yadxeic is added, and that “he is 


1Van Oosterzee remarks on aya0yv cvveisy- | mann’s opinion, that the good conscience is 
ow “as a troublesome reminder,” which is compared to “the ballast which gives the 
not appropriate, because ay. cvverd. is not the necessary stability to a ship,” is wrong, since 
conscience exhorting to good and punishing  amwetc@ac does not mean “to cast overs 
evil, but of willing and doing good.—Hof- board.” 


86 ; THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


mentioned there not as excommunicated, but rather as still coming in 
contact with the apostle; not as a heretic, but as an opponent” (de 
Wette). It is, however, quite arbitrary to regard the Alexander (Acts xix. 
33) who took part in the uproar at Ephesus as identical with the one men- 
tioned here (see Meyer on the passage).\—oi¢ rapéduxa 7@ carava] [V e.] 
the same excommunication of which the apostle speaks in 1 Cor. v. 5 
(comp. Meyer on the passage). It is not simply excommunication from 
the church, but with the purpose of ensuring, through Satan’s means, 
dAeOpo¢ tHe capxéc to the one excommunicated. This is shown not only by 
the formula itself, but also by the solemnity with which Paul there 
expresses himself. The added clause, iva raidevéoow k.7.2., makes it clear 
that here also the apostle had in mind eic¢ 6Ae6pov 7. capx., for that clause 
at the same time gives the purpose of the rapédoxa, which is the reforma- 
tion (iva 7d rveiza ow, 1 Cor. v. 5), or at least the preservation, of the 
excommunicated man from iacdyueiv.2—radevew] in classical Greek 
equivalent to “educate, especially by instruction,” so also Acts vii. 22, 
xxii. 3, has elsewhere in the N. T. the meaning of “ punish in order to 
reform,” i.e. chastise; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9, 
especially Heb. xii. 5-11. In Rev. iii. 19 it stands connected with ééyyeuw 
(in Luke xxiii. 16, 22, the purpose of reformation falls quite into the back- 
ground).—The diebpoc tice capkéc is intended by the apostle to be a chas- 
tisement to the one named, that he may be kept from further reviling. 
The expression f2acd7ueiv shows that they had not only suffered ship- 
wreck in faith, but: in their unbelief were on the point of proceeding 
actually to revile the Lord. 


Nores spy AMERICAN EDITOR. 
2 ps Inga 


The opening salutations of the Pastoral Epistles have some peculiarities which 
distinguish them from those of the other Pauline Epistles, and some which dis- 
tinguish them from each other. The reader finds himself passing in these letters, 
even at the beginning, into a new sphere of language to some extent, and the 
question which meets him is whether the change is so great as to indicate a differ- 
ence in the authorship. In the decision of this question two facts, which are 
noticeable everywhere in Paul’s writings, must be borne in mind :—namely, the 
freedom which characterizes his style, even where he uses phraseology of the same 


10tto (pp. 98-112) gives a very vivid and 
detailed picture of the tumult at Ephesus in 
which a certain Alexander took part, in order 
to prove the identity of the two Alexanders, 
and confirm his view regarding the date of 
the composition of this epistle. ~ But even if 
the course of that tumult was as Otto de- 
scribes it, with the aid of many arbitrary 
suppositions, still we car by no means infer 
the identity he maintains. in order to prove 
it, Otto does not despise many strange 


assumptions, such as, that the designation 
xadkevs (2-Tim. iv. 14) was given to Alexander 
because he was one of those who manufac- 
tured the miniature silver temples; further, 
that he, deceived by the soothsayers, had 


-made no objection to the union of the worship 


of Jehovah with heathen idolatry. 

. 23In opposition to Hofmann’s opinion, that 
neither here nor in the passage of Corin- 
thians we are to think of an excommunication 
from the church, comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 5. 


NOTES. 87 


general character, and the readiness with which he adopts new expressions, as he 
moves from one section of his epistles to another, according as the subjects of dis- 
cussion or the errors which threaten the churches become new. 

Though addressed to individuals who had long been closely related to himself, 
it is evident that the Apostle, in these letters, has reference to the churches which 
were, and were to be, under their general superintendence. The letters, accord- 
ingly, have a double character, and they can only be properly explained as this 
peculiarity is observed. It is in this way, undoubtedly, that the use of the word 
ardorodoc in all the three letters is to be accounted for, as contrasted with the 
simple déouioc of the Epistle to Philemon, the only other letter addressed to an 
individual. Possibly, the combination of the two elements may be seen in Tit. i. 
1, where the words dovéog and aréotoAoc are both used. With respect to the use 
of the phrase car’ émitayyv Geov, it may be noticed: (1) that it occurs in Tit. i. 3 
in connection with the more definite statement that the Apostle was intrusted with 
the matter of proclaiming the gospel ; (2) that in this employment of the phrase 
we find a close resemblance to its use in Rom. xvi. 26; (3) that in 2 Tim. i. 1 the 
common Pauline phrase dca GeAjpuatoc Oeov is substituted for it; (4) that in the 
last mentioned passage the words kar’ érayyediay Cwy¢ are added, with which we 
may compare kata qwiotw KT.A... . én EAridt Cuong aiwviov of Tit. i. If. (see 
THE éAridog judv, 1 Tim.i.1). The similarity and, at the same time, variety of 
thought and expression are, thus, so characteristic of Paul, that the mere fact of 
the non-occurrence of the phrase kat’ émitay. Geotv elsewhere (except in Tit. i. 3, 
and Rom. xvi. 26) can hardly be regarded as showing the words to be un-Pauline. 
The same, in substance, may be said of the word ocwrip as applied to God the 
Father. This application of the word in the Pastoral Epistles, however, is a 
point worthy of consideration with reference to the view presented in them of the 
relation of Christ to the Father. It will be noticed that cwr7p is connected with 
Geov in this salutation of 1 Tim., while in the opening verses of Tit. it is joined 
both with @eov (ver. 3) and with Xp. Ijoov (ver. 4) and in 2 Tim. i. 1, 2 it is not 
found. The addition of the word éAeo¢ to the ordinary ydpic Kai cipyvn of the 
Pauline salutations is peculiar, but can hardly be considered as a matter of diffi- 
culty—especially as, according to the larger part of the oldest authorities, it does 
not occur in the Epistle to Titus. Tisch., Treg., W. & H., Alf, R. V., EIIL., 
Huther, and others omit the word in Titus. The greater fullness of expression in 
the salutation of the last-named Epistle, by reason of which it reaches twice the 
length of those in the letters to Timothy, is to be explained in connection with 
the double character of all these epistles already alluded to. 


II. Vv. 3, 4. 


(a) On the construction of vv. 3, 4, nothing need be added to what is said by 
Huther in his note. The apodosis to be supplied is oitw kai viv tapaxaro, With 
this construction, the sentence implies a condition which is apparently inconsist- 
ent with the placing of the Epistle within that portion of Paul’s history which is 
included in the narrative of the Acts. The same thing is indicated by other con- 
siderations connected with this and the other two Epistles. The allusion to the 
fables and endless genealogies points to a later date for the letter than that at 
which the Epp. to the Ephesians and Colossians were written.—() The word 
_ érepodidackaAeiv seems to be a sort of negative to tpocéyevv K.T.2. as a positive. The 


88 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


former may be regarded as describing in its opposition to the gospel, what the 
latter sets forth in its own character. This view-is not only made probable by 
the construction of the two parallel clauses, but also by vi. 3, the only other 
passage in which érepodcd. occurs. In that passage it is contrasted with “consent- 
ing to sound words” and “ the doctrine which is according to godliness.” Though 
a word not used elsewhere, and perhaps, as some hold, coined by this writer, it is 
a word which is so easily formed and which, in the idea suggested by it, is so 
nearly kindred to undoubtedly genuine Pauline expressions (comp. Gal. i. 6f. ete.) 
that no objection can be made to it, as if it could not be employed by the Apostle. 
As to the other words in the corresponding clause—iore and yeveasoyiaic,—the 
former is found in iy. 7, where the adjectives profane and old wives’ are joined with 
it, in 2 Tim. iv. 4, where the “ofor are contrasted with the truth, and in Tit. i. 14, 
where they are called Jewish, and are connected with commandments of men who 
turn away from the truth. The latter word, on’ the other hand, occurs only once 
elsewhere—Tit. iii. 9, where it is used in connection with foolish questionings, 
strifes, and fightings about the law. There can be little doubt, as the two words are 
careiully considered, that the doctrines or views which the writer has in mind 
are Jewish. They are distinctly called Jewish in Tit. i. 14, and are so described 
in other passages as related to the law, that there can scarcely be any question 
respecting this point. Indeed, vv. 7 ff. of the present chapter make this evident. 
The words themselves, however, are such as manifestly could not be used of the 
Judaistic doctrine referred to in Gal., and they seem to indicate something more 
than is hinted at in Eph. or Col. This further growth and development may be 
more distinctly noticed in the many other statements made in these epistles respect- 
ing the errors. They show that, on the moral side, there was a movement 
towards license rather than asceticism, and, on the intellectual side, a progress in 
the general line of the Gnostie ideas. That the tendency to asceticism is still mani- 
fest, however, is clear from 1 Tim. iv. 8; and the terms and descriptions, in gen- 
eral, which are employed do not indicate any such marked remove from the 
state of things presented before us in Col., as to prove a much later date for the 
Pastoral Epistles. In the rapid movement of thought which we may ‘believe to 
have characterized that early period of the history of the church, it is not diffi- 
cult to suppose that the change which occurred between the time of w riting to 
the Romans and that of addressing the Colossians may have been followed by a 
change between the time of the epistle to the latter and the Epistles to Timothy 
and Titus, such as appears in the descriptions of errors which they contain, even 
if these last mentioned letters were separated from Col. by but four or five years. 
—(c) The word (yryoerc is, strictly, of the active form and to be understood in an 
active sense. But, as it seems to border in its idea both upon the active and 
passive sense, and as olxovouiavy, when connected with @eov, has apparently else- 
where the objective meaning, it may be regarded as somewhat more probable-that 
both words are here to be taken objectively, than subjectively, as Huther in his 
last edition prefers. Grimm Lex. N. T. takes them objectively, so Ell., Alf. 
Wiesinger, and others. Grimm says, “quae materiem disceptationum potius quam 
dispensationem rerum, quibus deus christianam salutem praeparavit et paravit, quae fide 
amplectenda est (cognoscendam) praebent.” Ell. says, “The fables and genealogies 
supplied questions of a controversial nature, but not the essence and principles of 
the divine dispensation.’ The question between the two explanations’ of the 
words is one of much uncertainty, an| the most that can be affirmed, on either 


NOTES. 89 


side, is a probability. With either interpretation of oixovoyiav, the added words 
év riorec denote the sphere within which the dispensation or stewardship moves. 
—(d) aitwee may mean since they, or suchas. W. and H., with & A 17, read 
éxCytyoete. So also Treg. and Tisch. 8th ed. and the text adopted by R. V. This 
form occurs nowhere else. 


III. Vv. 5-11. 


(a) That there is a close connection between tapayyediac of ver. 5 and the cor- 
responding verb in ver. 4 can hardly be doubted; but, as the verb, as here used, 
adds to itself the idea expressed in p7 étepod.dackadeiy, it is probable that the noun 
extends itself, also, to the same thing, and thus the “charge” contains that which 
belongs in and with “the healthful teaching.” The end and aim of this is love. 
Love here means love to one’s neighbor, as Huther remarks, and from the con- 
nection with what follows seems to stand in contrast to that which the tuvéc were 
promoting —(b) The contrast of aya7y, although in the fori of expression with 
paratodoyiav, must be in reality with that to which the “ata. leads. This does 
not seem to be merely the strifes which attend upon, or are likely to be produced 
by, the éxCyr7ceve (comp. Tit. ii. 9), but all tnat which, in these Epp., is indicated 
as the result of the doctrine of these men. Having swerved from a pure con- 
science, heart, etc., they had turned aside—these words and the following point 
apparently to such a turning from the true teaching of the gospel towards the law, 
as not indeed, like the Galatian Judaizers, merely to make the latter essential to 
justification, but rather to misconceive the purpose of the law and even direct it 
to wrong ends. Alf.says: The Apostle was dealing “ with men who corrupted the 
material enactments of the moral law, and founded on Judaism not assertions of 
its obligation, but idle fables and allegories, letting in latitude of morals and un- 
holiness of life. It is against this abuse of the law that his arguments are 
directed ; these men struck, by their interpretation, at the root of all divine law 
itself, and therefore at that root itself does he meet and grapple with them.”— 
(c) That the law here referred to is the Mosaic Law is proved both by the 6 véuoe 
of ver. 8 and the fact that the fables, ete., are called Jewish (Tit. i. 14). This 
being the case, there can be little doubt that vowodsdacKado: means teachers of this 
particular law, and it is highly probable that 1éuo¢ of ver. 9 has the same refer- 
ence. This law is the only one, apparently, of which the Apostle speaks, or which 
he has in mind, in any passage in these epistles——(d) The relation of the persons 
spoken of to the law is suggested by the clause éav ti¢ avTG vouiuwe ypytrat, This 
expression points to what is said by Alford, as quoted above, and would scarcely 
have been used by the Apostle of the Galatian teachers.—(e) The exact meaning 
of the word dixaiw of ver. 9 is somewhat doubtful. The contrast with avduore, ete., 
and the not improbable connection in thought, in the use of these words, with the 
prohibitions of the Decalogue, point to the ordinary sense of dixaoc, The refer- 
ence, on the other hand, to the Pauline gospel in ver. 11, and the fact that here, 
as elsewhere in his Epistles, the Apostle apparently contends against those who 
oppose his own doctrine, suggest that he has in mind righteousness in the 
peculiarly Christian sense. Not improbably, there may be a certain union of the 
two elements in the word, as connected with the fact that these teachers of the 
law were pressing their opposing views even to the point of lawlessness and laxity 
in morals.—(f) The connection «f sara 76 ebay. which Huther favors is that which 


90 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


most of the recent commeniators adopt. This phrase, accordingly, refers to all 
that has been said about the law. Adéy¢ is an objective genitive, and probably has 
reference to the revelation of the Divine glory which the gospel makes, as con- 
trasted with the erroneous and empty doctrines of the false teachers. 


IV. Vv. 12-17. 


(a) With regard to the connection between this passage and what precedes, two 
remarks may be made: (1) that, as the letter isone having both a personal anda 
general or public aim, itis not strange that the writer should at times turn, even 
somewhat abruptly, to a matter related to his own experience or his individual 
reminiscences. Such transitions from the general to the individual are, in such a 
letter, no indication of weakress of style or thought; and (2) that, if such a 
transition is allowed to the author here, the thought moves on in a suitable pro- 
gress from the verses which precede to the end of this passage. If these letters 
were written by Paul, they belong to the latest period of his life. His impulse 
towards dwelling upon his own personal history is observable in all his Epistles, 
even those of earliest date. That, in later years, this impulse should have become 
stronger, is only what might be reasonably expected. Advancing life and its 
many trials and successes made him recall, with ever fresh interest, what he had 
gone through, and, especially, the wonder of the Divine grace in his case. Pas- 
sages like the present, therefore, so far from being a ground of objection to the 
Pauline authorship of the Epistle, are, on the contrary, entirely consistent with 
it—(b) It is to be observed, also, that, in the case of this particular passage, no 
just objection can be made to the Pauline authorship on the ground that one who 
was so familiar with Timothy as the Apostle was, and had long been, could not be 
expected to make to him suth detailed statements respecting himself and his own 
history. Whatever may be said of other cases, there is nothing here which is 
inconsistent with what a man like Paul might have said in grateful remembrance 
of his past life—(c) The meaning of orc in ver. 15, where it is used of a thing 
(Adyoc), is, apparently, worthy of credit. Probably, the adjective has a similar mean- 
ing, trustworthy, to be relied upon, worthy of credit, in 1 Cor. vii. 25; possibly, also, in 
2 Tim. ii. 2. The correspondence of ver. 12 with the verse mentioned in 1 Cor, 
in its general thought (comp. 7Ae#4nv ver. 18, #Aenuévoc x.7.2. in 1 Cor.), and the 
fact that the Divine choice of Paul for the ministry was made before the question 
of actual faithfulness in service could arise, favor giving to the adjective the sense 
of trustworthy in this verse. It is commonly, however, rendered faithful. So 
Huther, Alf., Ell., R. V., Bib. Com., and others, (“He knew me to be such an 
one, in His foresight, as would prove faithful to the great trust,” Alf.)—(d) Love 
and faith in ver. 14, are immediately connected with 7 ydpc Tov Kupiov 7udv, and 
thus are here viewed as divine gifts. They are suggested, probably, by the thought 
of vy. 4, 5, where these words occur as the end and sphere of the divine tapayyeAia 
and oixovouia. The closeness of the thought here to that of the earlier verses 
is thus manifest—(e) Ver. 15. The phrase tiord¢ 6 Adyoc, which occurs several 
times in these Epistles, refers here, and perhaps in all cases, to what follows. The 
word Aéyo¢ seems to have the sense of common or fixed-saying,—something of the 
character of a proverbial sentence. The introduction of the words with this for- 
mula is to be accounted for in connection with the public character of the latter, 
while the preceding and following words have a more individual reference. This 


NOTES. 91 


intermingling of the two is a part of the semi-official style in which the Epistle 
is written. It cannot be regarded as an Epistle written simply for the private 
reading of Timothy.—(j') The statement that Christ Jesus came into the world 
to save sinners is intended, apparently, to contrast the gospel with the doctrine of 
the errorists, in that the great distinguishing characteristic of the gospel is its 
design of saving sinners. The errorists gave themselves to a vain discoursing 
about the law and legal righteousness, which moved in the outward region and 
even tended to laxness in true morality; but the teaching of the gospel was a 
teaching of forgiveness, and, then, of inward sanctification. To no better illustra- 
tion of the power of this Christian doctrine, or its transforming effect, could the 
Apostle refer than his own life, and so he at once turns again to his own case— 
declaring himself to be spato¢ among sinners, and the one in whom, as tp@roc, the 
long-suffering of Christ was shown as an example for all who should follow in 
after times. p@rto¢ of ver. 15 almost certainly means first, in the sense of chief; 
mpotw of ver. 16 has primarily, if not exclusively, the sense of first, as related to 
Tov weAAdvTwv—it is possible, however, that in tparw, also, there may be combined 
with first in time, or succession, the idea of chief—(g) The peculiarities of the 
doxology in ver. 17 are (1) the introduction of the words with a substantive form 
in the dative, instead of a relative pronoun as in all other cases in Paul’s writings 
where a dative opens a doxological clause; (2) the use of BaoAci¢ asa designa- 
tion of God, which does not occur in the other Pauline Epistles; (3) the expres- 
sion Bac, Tov aidvwv, This expression is not found elsewhere in the N. T. On 
the other hand, a¢4apréc is applied to God by Paul in Rom. i. 28; aéparoe, in Col. 
i. 15; pdvoc, in Rom. xvi. 27. d0Sa and tiwq are used in connection with each 
other by Paul, but not in a doxology. In the variety of the Pauline expressions, 
which include even several of the words here used, we may easily find a place for 
a doxology of this character, although one precisely like it, in all respects, may 
not be discovered. The turn to the doxology, like that to the expression of 
thanks in ver. 12, is somewhat abrupt—more so than is ordinarily the case in the 
Pauline doxologies. The connection in the thought is, possibly, though not very 
probably, in the words aiéviov—aioverv. The suggestion of the ascription of praise 
to God comes undoubtedly, from the thought of the divine mercy and grace which 
had been manifested in his case.—(h) That tov aidvev here means the ages, and 
not the world, is rendered probable both by the ai@viov which precedes and the 
aiavacg aiévwv which follows, and by the fact that the relation of God to the world 
does not seem to be naturally suggested in this place. The ages are, apparently, 
all the ages of duration, and so, although the word is not equivalent to the adjec- 
tive eternal, the idea of eternal existence is suggested in connection with it. The 
connection of a¢#aptw and aopatw with Geo¢—the King of the ages, the incorrupt- 
ible, invisible, only God—is probably to be preferred to that which seems to be 
adopted by R. V.: the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, the only God. 


V. Vv. 18-20. 


(a) Vv. 12-17 are, evidently, in one sense—so far as they express the writer's 
thankfulness and refer to his own experience—a digression or parenthesis. In 
another sense—so far as there is a reference to the doctrine of the gospel—they 
-set forth what is in the line of the preceding verses. While, therefore, it may be 
questioned whether tapayyeAiav of ver. 18 is to be immediately connected with the 


92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


same word in ver. 5, it is probable that, in the general thought, the Apostle goes 
back to that verse, and that, in this word, he refers tothe comprehensive charge 
appertaining to the Christian teaching. This charge he commits—deposits, as it 
were, in his hands—to Timothy, in accordance with the prophecies, ete. As these 
prophecies assigned to Timothy the work of a preacher and missionary, the ful- 
fillment of the general charge of the gospel in his case would be accomplished by 
his “warring in the sphere of them the good warfare.” The charge is, therefore, 
committed to him by the Apostle, in order that he may war, ete. This explana- 
tion of the word wapayyediav, and of the construction, seems, on the whole, the 
simplest and best—making iva «.7.A, denote the end in view of tapari#eyai, rather 
than finding in that clause the explanation of what is meant by the mapayyediay, 
This view is confirmed by the correspondence of tiorw and ayabyv cvveidnow of 
this verse with the same words in ver. 5, and in the general similarity of their 
relation to the main thought in the two cases.—(b) R. V. renders ra¢ mpoayoicac 
K.T.A.which went befere on thee, in the text, and led the way to thee, in the margin. A. R. 
V. substitutes this marginal rendering for the text. This rendering of A. R. V. 
is favored by the position of the words ézi oé, but as mpoay. in Heb. vii. 18 has the 
sense of foregoing, former, and as there seems little occasion here to introduce the idea 
of led the way to thee, it is probably better, with Huther and many of the best recent 
comm., to give the participle the meaning former or preceding, and to make é7i oé 
qualify mpodyreiac, (So Alf., EIL, Fairbairn, Holtzm., Grimm, and others).—(e) 
Alf, Ell., Plumptre, Bib. Com., as well as the writers mentioned by Huther, 
regard év airai¢ as carrying in it the figure of armor. This seems, however, so 
doubtful, that it is safer to take év more generally, in the sense of in the sphere of. 
It was in the sphere of what these prophecies suggested, that the warfare, in 
Timothy’s case, could be rightly carried forward. With rv kaAgjv orpareiav we 
may compare the kindred, and yet different, phrase tov KaAdv ayova, 2 Tim. iv. 7? 
—(d) That 7v of ver. 19 refers to ay. ovveidyow only is indicated both by the sing- 
ular number and by the fact that it was by wilfully thrusting from themselves 
that which is indicated by 7, that they made shipwreck concerning tioTic. That 
THv TioTw is, ina certain sense, objective here is evident; but that it means the 
faith, as a system of doctrine, is doubtful, or even improbable. The use of tiotv¢ 
in the latter sense, in the Pauline Epistles, is questionable—(e) The expression 
mapéduKa 7 Laravd (ver. 20) is found elsewhere only in 1 Cor. v. 5. In that 
passage it seems to indicate something additional to, and different from, excom- 
munication. While the latter was the act of the church, this was a thing, appar- 
ently, which appertained to the apostolic office alone. Not improbably, it may 
have been attended by some bodily evil in the person thus delivered ; but this 
cannot be confidently affirmed. From the final clauses added both in 1 Cor. and 
here, it seems probable that the design of it was reformatory (comp. especially iva 
TO rvevua Cully ev TH Huepa Tod Kupiov 1 Cor. v.5). That the result was always, 
reformation is not certain. Apparently this was the result in the case mentioned 
in 1 Cor., as we may infer from what the Apostle says in 2 Cor. ii. 5 ff.,—if, indeed 
this penalty was there finally inflicted. 


CHAP. II 93 


CHAPTER IT. 


Ver. 1. zapaka2.6] Instead of this, D* F G, Sahid. Clar. Boern. Hilar. Ambro- 
siast. ed. Cassiod. (alicubi) Or. (ter ut Rec.) have the imperative tapakaiet, which 
is manifestly a conjecture for the purpose of giving to the words the form of a 
commission to Timothy.—7avTwr] is omitted in some codd. (G, G, Boern. Or. 
[semel]); it might easily be overlooked as merely strengthening the tpatov.— 
Ver. 3. In A 17, 67** 8, Cop. Sahid. yap is wanting, and is therefore omitted by 
Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8; it is retained in Matthaei and Tisch. 7—Ver. 6. 76 
fapriptov Katpoicg idiore] Some codd. have the reading ov 70 papr. x. id, £d63y (D* 
® G, Clar. Boern. Harl.* Ambrosiast.; while some cursives have the reading ov, 
but without ¢d647). This reading has only arisen out of a desire to connect the 
words more closely with what precedes. The omission of the words 70 paprupiov 
in A is to be considered merely an error in copying. Lachm. in his large edition 
(so also Buttm.) left them out; in the small edition he retained them. W has the 
reading kai for 76.—Ver. 7. The words év Xpior@ were rejected from the text 
even by Griesb. (so also Scholz, Lachm., and others), because they are wanting in 
the most important authorities, in A D* F G 3, 6, 23* 31, al., Syr. utr. Arr. 
Copt. etc.; on the other hand, they are found in 8 Matthaei, however, has 
retained them with the remark : adhuc maneo in ea sententia, ut credam, ab Praxa- 
postolis et Euchologiis exclusum esse in fine lectionis. If they are compared with 
Rom. ix. 1, it is easy to explain how they came into the text—Instead of év 
miotet, 8 has év yvécer. Buttm., following A, reads év tveiwats.—Ver. 8. Instead 
of the singular dsadoyiouov, F G 17, 47, 67** al., Syr. utr. Boern. Or. (ter sed ter 
ut Rec.) Eus., ete., have the plural dsaAjoyiouev (Tisch. 7); Matthaei remarks on 
this: hujusmodi lectiones plerumque placent viris graece doctis ; verum in N, T. 
contraria ferenda est sententia. Most authorities, including &, have the singular 
(Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). The plural is with Reiche to be considered a mere 
correction, all the more that the singular of the word does not occur elsewhere in 
the N. T. (except in Luke ix. 46, 47) ; comp. especially Phil. ii. 14—Ver. 9. xai 
Tac] are wanting in A 71; «ai alone is wanting in &, and rae alone is wanting 
in D* F G 67** 73, al., Or. Lachm. and Buttm. omitted both words, Tisch. only 
Ta¢.—i xpvo®] Instead of the Rec. 7 (in D*** K L, ete.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
rightly adopted «ai, following A D* F G, etc. Tisch. retained the Ree. ypvoe, 
following D K L, ete.; Lachm. and Buttm., on the other hand, read ypvoiw 
following A F G, ete. As both forms are used in the N. T., we can hardly decide 
which is right here—Ver. 10. The reading ¢ instead of 6, found in some cur- 
sives, Arm. and Cypr., is manifestly a correction to facilitate the interpretation — 
Ver. 12. Instead of yuvarkt dé diddoxew (Tisch. 7), we should follow A D F GX, 
al., Arm. Vulg. It. Cypr. Jer. Ambrosiast., and read diddoxew dé yvvaiki, which 
has been received into the text by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. Hofm., for the sake 
. of his exposition, prefers the Rec—Ver 14. Instead of the Ree. ataryteioa, Lachm. 
Buttm. Tisch. read the compound éfa7ar7eioa, on the testimony of A D* F G 


94 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


17 28, al., Mt. K., Bas. Chrys. If the compound had not such weighty authorities 
in its favor, we should be inclined to account for it out of Rom. vii. 11 and 2 Cor. 
xi. 3.—Ver. 15. On the reading yap for dé, found in some codd., Matthaei rightly 
remarks: ita centies istae particulae ... praesertim in principio pro arbitrio 
mutantur. 


Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note VI., pages 109-111.] After directing Timo- 
thy’s attention generally to the ozpareia to which he had been appointed, 
Paul proceeds to mention in detail the things for which, in his office, he 
had to care. This connection of thought is marked by the particle of 
transition oiv (Wiesinger), which therefore does not stand (as de Wette, 
following Schleiermacher, thinks) without any logical connection.! [VI a.] 
—rpotov tévrwor] is not to be taken with zoveioba, as Luther does: “to do 
before everything else,” but with zapaxara (Heydenreich, Matthies, de 
Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee).—oveiabar deqoere x.7.4.] [VI b.] The apos- 
tle herewith begins to give “instructions regarding public prayer ” (Wies- 
inger). The idea of prayer is here expressed by four words. Aéyow and 
Tpooevyy are connected in other passages as synonyms—in Eph. vi. 18, 
Phil. iv. 6; the difference between them is this, that déyow can be used 
only of petitionary prayer, zpocevyy of every kind of prayer. Not less 
general in meaning 1s évrevévc, from évrvyyavew ti incidere in aliquem, 
adire aliquem, and in reference to God: pray (Wisd. viii. 21, xvi. 28). The 
reference to another is not contained in the word itself, but in the prepo- 
sition connected with it, asin Rom. xi. 2: xara two¢; and Rom. viii. 34; 
Heb. vii. 25: ixép twoc. Accordingly, the substantive évrevéic, which 
occurs only here and in chap. iv. 5, does not in itself possess the meaning 
of intercession for others, but denotes simply prayer as an address to God 
(Wiesinger).? The three words, accordingly, are thus distinguished : in 
the first, the element of insufficiency is prominent; in the second, that of 
devotion; and in the third, that of child-like confidence (prayer—the 
heart’s converse with God). Calvin is right in his remark, that Paul 
joined these three words together here “ut precandi studium et assidui- 
tatem magis commendet ac vehementius urgeat.” *—evyapioriac] “prayers 


the punishment of sin; mpooevy%, prayer for 
the bestowal of benefits; évrevéis, prayer for 
the punishment of the unrighteous (Theodo- 
ret: denats eat, Urép amadAayis TLv@v AUTNpaV 


1 Hofmann’'s reference of odv toi. 15 and the 
conclusion of ver. 16 is far-fetched: “If Christ 
came into the world to save sinners, and if 
the long-suffering of God towards the man 


whom He made His apostle from being a re- 
viler, was to be a prophecy regarding the con- 
version of those who were afterwards made 
to believe on Him, it becomes Christians not, 
in sectarian fashion, to limit its command to 
its sphere at that time, but to extend it to all 
men.” 

2Comp. Plutarch, Vita Numae, chap. 14: pH 
movetaGat Tas mpos TO Oetov evtevgers ev arxo- 
Alq Kai Tapépyws. 

3In regard to the more precise definition 
of the word, there is much that is arbitrary 
in expositors older and more recent. Thus 
senovs is understood to be prayer for averting 


ixereta mpoohepomevn’ mpowevxy eat aitnats 
ayadav’ évrevéis eats KaTnyopia Tay adikovYTwY; 
so, too, Theophylact and Oecumenius). Pho 
tius (ad Amphil. qu. 193) explains évtvxéa in 
the same way: evtuxia (oTay Tis Kata TOV ade- 
KovVTwY évTUYXaVN TO Bee, MpoTKadrovpmevos 
avrov eis exdixynowv); but the other two words 
differently: Sénous wey AéyeTar, OTav Tis @ceor 
a&.ot €is mpayua’ mpocevxy Sé, bray vuvy Tor 
@eov. Origen (wept evx7s, 3 44) finds a climax 
in the succession of the words, and dis- 
tinguishes mpocevxai from denoecs in this way, 
that the former are prayers joined with a Sogo- 
Aoyia, made for greater things and peyade 


CHAP. I. 1, 2. 95 


of thanksgiving,” the apostle adds, because in Christian prayer the giving 
of thanks should never be wanting ; comp. Phil. iv. 6: 
kat tH deqoet peta evyapiotiag Ta aithuata budv yvwpilecbar zpdc Tov Oedv.— 
trép raver aviporwr] is not to be referred merely to evyapiotia, but also 
to the preceding words (Wiesinger). The prayer of the Christian com- 
munity (for this and not private prayer is here spoken of ) is—in petition 
and thanksgiving—to embrace all mankind. [VI c.] 

Ver. 2. ‘Yrép Baoidéwv] Baovdeic are not merely the Roman emperors, the 
apostle using the plural because of the emperor’s colleagues (Baur); the word 
is to be taken, in a more general sense, as denoting the highest authorities in 
the state —xai ravtwv tov év brepoyxy dvTwv] not only denoting the governors 
in the provinces, but all who hold the office of magistrate anywhere. The 
expression is synonymous with éovoia: imepéxovoa: in Rom. xiii. 1; comp. 
2 Mace. i. 11: avjp év brepoxy xeiuevoc. Josephus calls the magistrates 
simply ai irepoyai (Antiqg. vi. 4, 3). In the old liturgies we find, in express 
accordance with this passage, the déyow imép BaciAéwr Kai tov év brepoyn, 
brép THC Eiphryc Tov oburavroc Kéouov. The purpose for which intercession is 
specially to be made for all men in authority is given in the words that 
follow: iva jjpeyov Kai yobxwov Biov diaywuev, Which, as de Wette rightly re- 
marks, denotes the objective and not the subjective purpose. Paul does not 
mean here to direct attention to the value which intercession has for our 
own inner life, and by means of this for outward peace, as Heydenreich 
(“Christians are to pray also for heathen rulers, that by this prayer they 
may keep alive within themselves the quiet submissive spirit of citizens”’), 
Matthies (“animated with loving thoughts towards the representatives of 
the government, they are to be blameless in their walk, and to strive after 
the undisturbed enjoyment of outward peace’’), and others think; but 
the apostle is speaking of the still, quiet life as a blessing which the 
church obtains by prayer to God for the rulers. The prayer is directed, 
as Wiesinger rightly remarks, not for the conversion of the heathen 


éV TAVTL TH TpocEevyH 


dvéotepov, while évrevéers are the prayers of 
one who has mappyoiay twa mActova.—still 
more arbitrary is Kling’s explanation, that 
dejoecs are prayers in reference to the circum- 
stances of all mankind; mpocevxat, prayers 
for some benefit; évrevéers, prayers for the 
aversion of evil. Matthies is partly right, 
partly wrong when he says: dénors is the 
prayer made with a feeling of the need of 
God, so that the inner side of the need and of 
uprightness (?) is particularly prominent; 
mpogevxy, prayer, in the act of devotional 
address to the Godhead, therefore with refer- 
ence to the outward exercise (?); évtevéers, in- 
tercession, made not so much for ourselves 
as on behalf of others (?).—There is no ground 
whatever for the opinion of Heydenreich, 
that the first two expressions are used of 
prayer (Sénovs = petition ; mpocevxy = thanks- 
giving) for the whole Christian community, 
while the other two (évtevéis = petition ; evxa- 


protia = thanksgiving) are used of prayer for 
the whole of mankind. Lastly, we may note 
the peculiar view of Augustine (Ep. 59), 
according to which the four expressions are 
to be understood of prayers used at the cele- 
bration of the Lord’s Supper, denoers being 
the precationes before consecration; mpogev- 
xai, the orationes at the benediction, con- 
secration, and breaking of bread; évtevéecs, 
the interpellationes at the benediction of the 
congregation; and evxaprozia, the gratiarum 
actio at the close of the communion. Plitt so 
far agrees with this view of Augustine, that 
he thinks the apostle’s various expressions 
denote the various liturgical prayers, as they 
were defined even in ancient times at the 
celebration of the Eucharist (?). 

1 Hofmann maintains, without grounds, that 
iva «.7.A. does not give the purpose of the 
prayer for all men and for rulers, but “the 
purpose for which rulers exist” (!). 


96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


rulers, but for the divine blessing necessary to them in the discharge of 
their office (Rom. xiii. 14)—The adj. jpeuoc occurs only here! in the N.T., 
and jovxioc Only here.and in 1 Pet. i. 4 (synonymous with zpaic). The 
expression Piov didyew also occurs only here; in Tit. iii. 3, déyew is used 
without Biov—No exact distinction can be established between jpeuog and 
jovyioc. Olshausen (in Wies'nger) says, without reason, that the former 
means: “not disquieted from without;” the latter, “from within.” ’Hpéua 
denotes, in classic Greek at any rate, “still, tranquil existence;” but 
jovxu¢ (Fovyoc) has the same meaning, and also denotes that there is no 
disturbance from without. The collocation of the two words serves to give 
more force to the thought; a jp. «. goby. Bioc is a life led without dis- 
turbance from without, with no excitement of fear, etc.—iov didyew] 
“spend life, more than iyew” (Wiesinger); the same expression is often 
found in classical writers.—év rdoy evoeBeia kat ceuvdtnrc]. Not on this, but 
on 7p. kat jody. is the chief emphasis of the sentence laid (Plitt); the 
words only add a more precise definition. EioéZeva, a word foreign to the 
other Pauline Epistles, and (with eiceS%e, eboe Bic, ebae3év) occurring only 
in the Pastoral Epistles, in Acts, and in 2 Pet., denotes the godliness of 
the heart; cenvdryc, also peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (cenvde, only here 
and in Phil. iv. 8), denotes the becoming conduct of the Christian in all 
the relations of life. Hofmann is arbitrary in separating this addition 
from what immediately precedes, and joining it with roveiofar defoere x.7.A., 
as “denoting the manner in which the prayer commended is to be made.” 

Ver. 8. [VI d.] This verse points back to what was said in ver. 1; not, 
however, in such a way as to make ver. 2 a parenthesis (so in a former 
edition of this commentary), but rather so as to include the points men- 
tioned in it.—rovro] does not refer to the thoughts immediately preceding, 
but to the soveiobar defoerc irép Tavtov avOporov k.7.2.—The highest 
motive of the Christian to such prayer is the good pleasure of God.—xaor 
kai arddextov | amédextoc (like arodoy#) occurs only in this First Epistle to 
Timothy ; it is synonymous with.ebdpecroc in Col. iii. 20 (roiro yap evapecrov 
éotiv év Kupiw).—évOrioy Tov, cwtHpoc Audv Ocoi] is referred only to arddexrov by 
several expositors, who either take *a/év absolutely (de Wette: “good in 
itself;”” so also van Oosterzee, Matthies: “xa%. denotes the endeavor 
recommended in its inner worth and contents”), er, as Leo, supply with 
it évdriov tov avOpdrev: “which is praiseworthy, se. before men.” The 
latter is clearly quite arbitrary; but even for the former there is not 
sufficient ground, all the more when we compare 2 Cor. viii. 21: mpovootyev 
yap Kaa ov pdvov évorcov Kupiov, aAAd Kai Evorvov avdpdruv.2 On owrhp, see i. 1. 
—Paul uses this name for God here because he has already in mind the 
thought that follows (Wiesinger). 


1Nor is the positive jpewos used in the 
Greek classics. As yet it has been found 
only in the Inscript. Olbiopol. n. 2059, v. 24, by 
Lobeck; see Winer, p. 68 [E. T. p. 70]; Butt- 
mann, p. 24 [E. T. 28].—The substantives 
novxia and npewta are frequently found to- 


gether in the classics; e.g. Demosth. de Con- 
tributione, 28; Bekk. s. Dorville, On Chariton, 
p. 411. 

‘2 Heydenreich’s opinion is utterly erro- 
neous, that Paul calls prayer for all «adoy, 
because it is not only right and good, but 


CHAP. II. 3-5. 97 


Ver. 4. Ground of the previous thought. The general intercession 1s 
xan. x. a0. before God, because He, etc. It is not unusual to give in @ 
relative clause the grounds of a previous statement. “Oc tavrac avépdroug 
GéAe owjvac (comp. Tit. ii. 11)] [VI e.] The chief accent is laid on ravra¢ 
(corresponding with iép avtwv, ver. 1), which is therefore placed first. 
God’s purpose of salvation extends to all, and therefore the prayer of 
Christians must include all. Wiesinger, however, is right in remarking 
that “the apostle in é¢ «.7.4, does not mean specially to give a reason 
for prayer for the conversion of all men, but for prayer generally 
as a duty of universal love to men.” Chrysostom puts it differently : 
pyuow Tov Osdv' ek mavtac avOparoug GéAEL owlyvat, Gére Kai ob’ et dé OéAeELC, 
edyou' Tov yap TowiTev (Tov OeAdrvTwv) éoTl 7d ebyecha.—The true con- 
nection of thought is obscured if we supply the intermediate thought, that 
prayer for all, and specially for kings, serves to maintain the peace without 
which the spread of Christianity would be hindered.'—«ai eg ériyvoow 
GAnOeiac éA0civ] The same connection of words is found elsewhere only in 2 
Tim. iii. 7; on the meaning of éx/yvwow, see my Commentary on Colossians, 
pp- 74 f., Remark.—The connection of the two expressions cwfjva: and ei¢ 
ixiyv. ad. éAbew may be regarded differently. Hofmann takes them to be 
in substance identical; Heydenreich takes the latter as an explanation of 
the former, “showing how and by what means God wishes to effect the 
salvation of all;” he therefore regards the éxiyrwou rt. aa. as the means of 
the owrypia. So, too, Winer (p. 514 [E. T. p. 553]): “at first the general 
purpose is mentioned (ai, and in pursuance of this), then the immediate 
purpose (as a means of attaining the other).” It is explained in the same 
way by Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. But it seems more natural 
to regard the ériyvwore tig adnfeiag as the goal to which the rescue (sw6jvar) 
leads (so, too, Plitt).? 

Ver. 5. Elc yap ede] [VI f.] The particle yép connects this verse with 
the thought immediately preceding (Wiesinger), and not, as Leo and 
Mack think, with the exhortation to pray for all.* The apostle wishes by 
it to confirm the idea of the universality of the divine purpose of salva- 
tion as true and necessary : he does this first by pointing to the unity of 
God. There is a quite similar connection of ideas in Rom. ii. 30 
(emphasis is laid on God’s unity in another connection in 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
and, in a third connection, in Eph. iv. 6). From the unity of God, it 
necessarily follows that there is only one purpose regarding all; for if 


“brings a benefit to the Christians, by recom- his theory of predestination, has to take 


mending them to their rulers.” 

1Mosheim (Instit. Hist. Eccles. maj. I. 36): 
Id sanctus homo tradit:: nisi pax in orbe 
terrarum vigeat, fieri nullo modo posse, ut 
yoluntati divinae, quae omnium hominum 
salutem cupit, satisfiat; bellis nimirum fla- 
grantibus haud licuisset legatis Jesu Christi, 
secure ad omnes populos proficisci. 

2In this verse the idea of the universality 
of God’s purpose of salvation is clearly and 
‘distinctly expressed. Calvin, in order to save 


7 


refuge in an exposition more than ingenious: 
de hominum generibus, non singulis per- 
sonis, sermo est; nihil enim aliud intendit, 
quam principes et extraneos, populos in hoc 
numero includere. 

3Van Oosterzee confuses the two refer- 
ences: “God’s universal purpose of salvation 
is here established in such a way that at the 
same time there is to a certain extent (!) an 
indication of a third motive for performing 
Christian intercessions.” 


98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


there were various purposes for various individuals, the Godhead 
would be divided in its nature. As there is one God, however, so 
also there is one Mediator.—eic¢ kai pecitye Ocov Kai avOpdorwv] The 
word jecity¢' occurs elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles only in Gal. 
iii. 19, 20, where the name is given to Moses, because through him 
God revealed the law to the people. Elsewhere in the N. T. the word is 
found only in Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24, and in connection with dcabjxyc, 
from which, however, it cannot (with Schleiermacher and de Wette) be 
concluded that the idea mediator refers necessarily to the corresponding 
idea covenant. Christ is here named the peaitn¢ Ocov kai avOpdrwv, because 
He is inter Deum et homines constitutus (Tertullian). He is the Mediator 
for both, in so far as only through Him does God accomplish His purpose 
of salvation (His 6éAev) regarding men, and in so far as only through 
Him can men reach the goal appointed them by God (cwfjvar kai cic 
ériyv. aa. éA6eiv). Hofmann says: “He is the means of bringing about 
the relation in which God wishes to stand towards men, and in which 
men ought to stand towards God.” As with the unity of God, so also is 
the unity of the Mediator a surety for the truth of the thought expressed 
in ver. 4, that God’s 6éAew refers to all men.—To define it more precisely, 
Paul adds: avOpwroe Xpioric “Ijoovc. This addition may not, as Otto and 
others assume, have been occasioned by opposition to the docetism 
of the heretics. In other epistles of the N. T. special emphasis is 
laid on Christ’s humanity, with no such opposition to suggest it; thus 
Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Phil. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 16,17. Inthis passage the 
reason for it is contained first in the designation of Christ as the ecirye ;? 
and further, in the manner in which Christ carried out His work of 
mediation, 7.e., as the next verse informs us, by giving Himself up to 
death.’ 

Ver. 6. ‘0 dove éavriv avtiAutpov trép ravtwv] The word avridvtpov, which 
occurs only here, is synonymous with avraAzayua in Matt. xvi. 26; it is 
distinguished from the simple Airpov, as Matthies rightly remarks, only in 
this, that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more emphatic. 
According to the usage of the N. T., there can be no doubt that the apos- 
tle here alludes to Christ’s reconciling death ; comp., besides Tit. 11. 14, 
Matt. xx. 28, ete., especially I Pet. i. 18,19, where the rijwov aiva is men- 
tioned as the means by which we are redeemed. The expression doic 
éavtév has here—where avridvrpov is added by way of apposition to éavrév 


1 Regarding the use of the word in classical wrought only by a man. Only a man could 


Greek, comp. Cremer, s.v.—There is no 
necessity for Cremer’s opinion, that peotrns 
in the passages of Hebrews does not so much 
mean “mediator” as “surety.” 

“2Theodoret: av@pwrov 6€ Tov Xprorov wvo- 
pacev, ered) peaitny exadecev’ evavOpwrycas 
yap é“eolTevcev. 

%The avOparwv suggested the av@pwros all 
the more naturally, thet in the apostle’s con- 
sciousness the owrtnpia of men could be 


reconcile men with God; only, indeed, the 
roan of whom it was said os ébavepwOn ev capxt 
(chap. iii. 16). Hofmann supposes that Christ 
Jesus is here called av@pwz7os, “in order to 
say that, as He became man to be mediator, 
He is therefore the mediator and saviour not 
of this or of that man, but of all men without 
distinction.” This thought, however, is more 
the ground of the els, for even the mediator 
“of this or that man” might also be a man. 


CHAP. II. 6. 99 


(as in Matt. xx. 28, Airpov is in apposition to ry puyijv avtov)—the emphatic 
meaning of self-surrender to death, as in Tit. ii. 14, Gal. i. 4 (comp. also in 
John vi. 51, 9» [rv odpxa ov] dow, which, indeed, is uncertain critically), 
where dove éavtév has the same meaning as rapadoi¢g éavtév in Gal. ii. 20; 
Eph. v. 25 (comp., too, Rom. viii. 32). He gave Himself as a ransom by 
giving Himself up to death. The thought on which it is based is this: 
men were held év 7 éfovcia tov oxérove (Col.i. 18) ; from this they could not 
free themselves (ri ddéces dvbpuro¢ avtdddAayua tie Wuyne avtov; Matt. xvi. 
26); Christ therefore gave the avridvtpov necessary to free them; this ran- 
som is Himself (dove éavrdv), i.e. His life: ryv Wuyi avtov, Matt. xx. 28; so 
that by this, cwrypia is purchased for them. This, however, was done for 
the benefit not of some, but of all. Hence Paul adds expressly irép 
(equivalent to: in commodum!) ravtwv, which is emphatic, and with 
which he returns to the beginning of ver. 4. In this, as at 1. 15, the apos- 
tle revealed the substance of the tyaivovca didackadia, only that here he 
defines his former expression more precisely. [VI g, h.]—In order, how- 
ever, that this act of love on the Lord’s part may bring forth its fruit, it 
must be proclaimed to the world; this is indicated in the words that fol- 
low.—r0 papripiov Kaipoic idiow| Td paptipiov is not to be taken as in apposi- 
tion to avridvtpov, and explained of the death of Christ (Chrysostom : 
papripiov rd réfoc); itis to be regarded as in apposition to the thbught 
contained in the previous words of this verse (not “to the whole of what 
was previously said,” Hofmann). This does not mean, however, that 76 
paptipiov denotes Christ’s gift of Himself as a ransom (or “ Christ’s sacri- 
fice’), to be “the witness of salvation set forth at the appointed time, the 
historical fact that the divine purpose of salvation is realized ” (Matthies) ;? 
for zapripiov is not the deed itself, but the attestation, the proclamation of 
the deed ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 6, ti. 1. Nor does it mean that by papripiov we 
are to understand the testimonium, quod Deus per Christi vitam, doc- 
trinam et mortem protulit, vera esse ea omnia et rata, quae V. T. pro- 
phetae fore divinaverant (Heinrichs), for there is nothing to indicate an 
allusion to O. T. prophecy. The act of Christ already mentioned is called 
To paptipiov, in so far as this was its meaning and purpose. Bengel: 7d 
papripiov ace. absol. ut évdevyua, 2 Thess. i. 5, innuitur testimonium redem- 
tionis universalis.* The reason why the preaching of the gospel is called 
faptipov, is that its subject is an historical fact, the importance of which 
becomes known only by individual experience.—xarpoic idiouc] “is to be con- 
nected with 76 papripiov, just as if it were connected with 16 yaprypotpevov” 


- 1Van Oosterzee asserts, without reason, that 
umep here is to be taken in the sense of sub- 
stitution. 

2 Leo’s explanation is substantially the same 
as this: Quae Christus, inquit apostolus, ad 
homines seryandos fecit, ea sunt ipsius Dei 
testimonium. Quid vero testatus est Deus 
eo, quod Jesum Christum mori passus est? 
Quid aliud, quam amorem suum in genus 

- humanum plane incomparabilem ? 


3 Van Oosterzee believes that waprvpiov here 
must be taken as in apposition to avtiAutpor, 
the apostle calling the Lord’s surrender of 
Himself the great paptvpiov, with special 
reference to the truth mentioned in ver. 4. 
But against this it is to be remarked, that 
this explanation does not give a right defini- 
tion of the relation of apposition, nor of the 
meaning and purpose of the waptupuov. 


100 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


(Hofmann); the same expression is found in vi. 15; Tit. 1.3; also Gal. 
vi. 9 (Acts xvii. 26: Kaipot rporetaypévor); Chrysostom : roi¢ mpoogKovar Karpoic. 

Ver. 7. This verse defines more precisely the previous yapripwr, it was 
for proclaiming the yapripiov that the apostle received the office entrusted 
tohim. The chief emphasis rests on the universality ; the subject of the 
uapropiov is the fact that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all—eic 6 éréOnv 
ty KApvé Kai axdoroAo¢| Comp. on this, Eph. iii. 1-12; Col. i. 25-28; 2 Tim. 
i. 9-11.—eie¢ 6: for which (wapripiov), viz. “ for proclaiming which.”  éré@yv 
is to be taken in close connection with kfpvé «.7.A.—xjpvé, it is true, only 
occurs here and in 2 Tim. i. 11 as a name for the preacher of the gospel 
(in 2 Pet. ii. 5, Noah is called a kfpvE dexacoobvyc) ; but xkypiooew is used very 
frequently of the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Cor. i. 21, xjpvyya is iden- 
tical with evayyéaov. In order to direct attention to his peculiar apostolic 
authority, Paul adds to the general idea of «pve, the more specific expres- 
sion atéctodog. By the addition of aAjOevav Aéyw, ob pebdouar, the truth of 
the eic 6 is confirmed ;! he explains himself sufficiently on account of the 
heretics who wished that Paul should not be considered an apostle by the 
appointment of God. [VI 7.]—The further definition: didackadtoc evar, is 
to be taken in apposition to «jpvE x. axéatodoc. It was added to make 
clearer the reference to the heathen already indicated in eic 6, not, as 
Hofmann thinks, to form an apposition to the subject of aA7Aevav Aéyo; 
had that been so, we should have had an emphatic yé. The connected 
words éy rioter kai adndeia do not form the object of 6d. (Heydenreich 
takes it as “equivalent to év rH riorec TH aAndw7, a teacher of the Gentiles 
who is to instruct them in the true religion”); they are loosely added, 
according to a common usage of the N. T., and denote here the sphere in 
which he was appointed to discharge his office as teacher of the Gentiles. 
The peculiar point of view must not be lost by arbitrarily changing the 
words into év ry mister T. aAnfu7, Or, as Leo does, into micti¢ kai aAnbivéc. It 
is wrong also to render ior here by “faithfulness,” and ai7é. by 
“verity” (Hofmann: éy ziore, equivalent to “faithfully,” and é aAnbeia 
to. “in verity ”). Iorc is faith, the subjective relation, and ayia is truth, 
the objective benefit, appropriated in faith (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee).? 


1 Wiesinger less suitably refers the addition 
to the 6&6. €@vav, which in that case should 
have been preceded by a xat. Otto (p. 117) 
unjustifiably uses this asseveration of the 
apostle to confirm his assertion that the 
epistle was written during the apostle’s stay 
at Ephesus, insisting that Paul, after he was 
put in prison in Jerusalem, was acknowl- 
edged an apostle in all Christian churches, 
and from that time, therefore, had no ocea- 
sion for this asseveration. Apart from other 
points, Otto errs in referring the words 
adnGevav x.7.A. only to the expression amogTo- 
Aos, whereas they apply to the entire thought 
in eis 6 x.7.A. Paul does not make assevera- 
tion that he was appointed an apostle, but 
that he was appointed an apostle of the uap- 


tup.ov, the subject of which he had already 
mentioned. Comp. on this the passages 
quoted above. 

2Bengel seems to take the words in a sense 
corresponding to the formula of asseveration, 
adn. Aéyw x.7.A. He says in regard to this 
formula; “ pertinet haec affirmatio ad comma 
praecedens; nam subsequenti additur paral- 
lela: €v m. kai adn@.;” a view for which there 
is no justification Matthies expresses him- 
self somewhat obscurely; for while he in the 
first place mentions faith and truth not only 
as the elements, but also as the aims of the 
teaching, he says at the end of the discussion: 
“The apostle is teacher of the Gentiles in such 
a way that he knows himself to be impreg- 
nably established thereby in faith and truth.” 


CHAPS Tie i7,—8: 101 


Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-10, see Note VII., pages 111, 112.] After giving, in the 
digression of vv. 3-7, the grounds of his exhortation to prayer for all, Paul 
returns to the exhortation itself in such a way as to define it more precisely 
in regard to those who are to offer the prayer.—fobAoua: obv mpooet xecba 
rove avdpag év mavti térwy] “Hoc verbo (obtAoua) exprimitur auctoritas 
apostolica,” Bengel; comp. v. 14; Tit. 11.18: “J ordain.” [VII a.J—oir] 
Bengel’s explanation: “ particula ergo reassumit versum 1,” is not quite 
accurate; the particle connects with ver. 1 in order to carry on the thought 
there expressed.—pocei yeotar] [VII b.] Bengel: “sermo de precibus pub- 
licis, ubi sermonem orantis subsequitur multitudinis cor.” Matthies 
wrongly disputes the opinion that tpoceiyeofa here is used of “ prayer in 
the congregations.” The whole context shows beyond doubt that the 
apostle is here speaking of congregations.—rov¢ avdpac] opposed to rac 
yuvaixac, ver. 9. Paul assigns to each part its proper share in the assem- 
blies for worship; “he has something different to say to the men and to 
the women ” (Wiesinger).—év avr? réxw] does not stand here in opposi- 
tion to the Jewish limitation to the temple (Chrysostom and others) : 
“not once found” (de Wette), nor to the synagogue (Wolf), nor in refer- 
ence to the various places of Christian worship in Ephesus (van Oosterzee), 
nor to the neighboring congregations belonging to Timothy’s diocese 
(Heydenreich) ; it is to be taken generally, not in the sense of every place, 
“where the religious mood, custom, or duty cherishes it” (Matthies), but 
to all places where Christian congregations assemble (Wiesinger).—As to 
the construction, év tavti té7w does not belong to poset yeobac alone, but 
“to the whole clause ” (Wiesinger, Matthies, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). 
The apostle means to lay stress not on this, that men are to pray, but on 
how they are to pray; the chief emphasis, therefore, rests on éraipovra¢ 
k.7.A.—éraipoytac daiove yeipac| The Jews lifted up their hands not only in 
swearing an oath, Gen. xiv. 22 (Rev. x. 5), and in blessing, Lev. ix. 22 
(Luke xxiv. 50), but also in prayer, Ps. xxviii. 2, xliv. 21, lxiii. 5, ete. This 
passage is a proof that the same custom was observed in the Christian 
church. It is true that in the N. T. it is nowhere else mentioned, but in 
Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we have at chap. xxix. an 
evident allusion to this passage: mpocéAuyev avt@ év doldtyT. Woygc, ayvac 
kal duavtove yelpac aipovrec mpo¢ avtév.—Regarding the form <doiove for éciac, 
see Winer, p. 67 [E. T. p. 68].'—The hands are holy which have not been 
given over to the deeds of wicked lust; the opposite is given by juapai, 
BéBndroe yeipec, 2 Macc. v. 16; comp. on the expression, Job xvii. 9, Ps. 
xxiv. 4, and in the N. T. Jas. iv. 8 especially: kaBapicate yeioac Kai dyvioate 
capdiac. Hofmann is ingenious is defining éc/ove yeipe¢ more precisely by 
what follows: “The hands of the one praying are éo. only when he is 
inwardly saturated with the consecration without which his praying does 
not deserve the name of prayer.”’—ywpic opyyz¢ Kat diadoyiopov] Bengel is 
more pregnant than exact when he says: “ira, quae contraria amori et 
mater dubitationis; dubitatio, quae adversatur fidei. Fide et amore constat 


1Tt would be very forced to connect ociovs with émaipovtas as a masculine, which Winer 
considers at least possible. 


102 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


christianismus, gratiam et veritatem amplectens. Gratia fidem alit; veri- 
tas amorem Eph. iv.5;” for diatoyioude is not to be rendered by “doubt,” ! 
which never is its signification. The rendering “contention ” is also inac- 
curate; diadoyiouog is equivalent to consideration, deliberation, cogitatio. 
In the N. T. the singular occurs only here and in Luke ix. 46, 47; it is 
usually in the plural. The word is in itself a vox media, but it is mostly 
used where evil or perverted thoughts are spoken of; comp. Matt. xv. 19; 
Mark vii. 21; Luke v. 22, vi. 8, xxiv. 38. That it is to be taken here malo 
sensu, 1s shown by the close connection with opy7, which indicates that it 
is applied to deliberation towards one’s neighbor ; comp. Meyer on Phil. 
iil. 14, and especially Reiche, Comment. Crit. in N. T., on this passage. In 
the Pastoral Epistles, special stress is laid on peaceableness as a Christian 
virtue, ili. 3; Tit. ii. 2; 2 Tym. ii. 24. 

Vv. 9, 10. ‘Qoaitac yuvaixac «.7.4.] After speaking of the men, Paul turns 
to the women, and gives some precepts regarding their behavior in 
church assemblies——As to the construction, it is obvious that the verse 
depends on Potdoua in ver. 8. Several expositors, however, connect it 
not only with obdoua, but also with Bobsouar rpocebyeotac: “I will that 
the men pray .. . so also the women ;” they then take what follows: év 
KataotoAy Koouig K.T.2., aS Corresponding to éaipovrac «.7.A., ver. 8, and as 
defining more precisely the manner in which the women are to pray. 
The infinitive xocyeiv, however, is against this construction. De Wette, 
indeed, thinks that it is added to the infinitive mpocebyeota by asyndeton ; 
but although the connection of several infinitives with one another asyndet- 
ically frequently occurs (v. 14, vi. 18; Tit. iii. 1, 2), there is no example of 
two infinitives being thus connected? Hofmann is forced to assume that 
Koowetv “is a consequence dependent on pera aidovce Kat cwppoobvyc;” but 
how can self-adorning be considered a consequence of ‘ modesty and 
good sense”? Though sometimes the infinitive does stand connected in 
such loose fashion with what precedes, it would be difficult to find an 
instance of such a connection as Hofmann here assumes.—Against that 
construction there is also this point: since in ver. 8 zxpocebyechac Means 
prayer made by the men aloud in the church, here in ver. 9 it would have 
to be taken in a weakened sense; and it is so rendered by de Wette and 
Hofmann: “taking part in prayer.’’—According to this, the verse cannot 
be dependent on fotAouar rpocetyecta, but on BotAoua alone, so that év 
KataoToAy «.7.2. merely states how the women are to adorn themselves (so, 
too, Plitt). De Wette, indeed, thinks that objection may be made to this 
construction because the affirmative év «ar. «.7.4. is followed not only by a 
negative py év 7A, «.7.4., but also by a second affirmative in ver. 10. This 
accumulation of clauses, however, cannot be urged, since we have a simi- 


1So0 Bengel, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, could have been no doubt regarding it. Then 
Theodoret, Luther, and many others. he asks: “ Have we not elsewhere examples 
£Wiesinger unites the kcoopecy with the “enough of a similar change of construction ?” 
xpooevxecGar, and defends it with the remark, To this we must answer, “ No,” unless “simi 
that if instead of the asyndeton cf the in- lar” be taken in too wide a sense. 
finitive xoouety we had the participle, there 


Chap. it, 9), 10; 103 
iar accumulation in vy. 11,12. Nor is the particle ésairw¢ an argument 
against us, since it stands in other places where the same predicates are 
not used (comp. ill. 8; Tit. ii. 3). ‘Qoatrwe may be used wherever the 
members to be connected contain something not exactly alike, but of a 
kindred nature, as is the case here with dciove . . . duadoy touov and év 
cwppootvy¢,’ Nothing is to take place in the church, neither 
among the men nor among the women, which can hurt its spiritual 
dignity.—év xataor0Aq Kkoouiw] [VII ¢.] karaorody may, according to Greek 
usage, denote “ sedateness of nature.” ? Hence it is that some expositors 
(de Wette among others) take it here as equivalent to habitus catdoryjya 
(Tit. 11. 3); but it never occurs in that sense. The words that follow: yA 
év TAéypmaow . . . ivatiou@ modvredei, Show that the word is to be understood 
of clothing. True, it does not originally mean this, but the letting down, 
e.g., of the repipor%4 (Plutarch, Pericl. 5). This meaning, however, might 
easily pass into that of “the garment hanging down,” and then further, 
into that of “clothing in general.” This is the explanation given here by 
most expositors (also by Plitt and Hofmann ; van Oosterzee translates it: 
“bearing,” but explains it afterwards : “ xatacroA7 = évdyua”’). Some take 
it quite generally ; others, again, understand it of the garment enveloping 
the whole body (Chrysostom: 7 dumexyévy ravtobev mepiotédAovoa Kahac, pi 
meptépywc). This last explanation has no sufficient support in the etymol- 
ogy, nor in the ordinary usage.—xéouioc] does not mean “ delicately ” 
(Luther), but “modestly, honorably” (comp. iii. 2); beyond these passages, 
it is not found in the N. T.—yera aidot¢ kai owppocivyc] The outward modesty 
which makes itself known in the dress, is to be accompanied by inward 
purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account. 
While aidé¢ denotes the inward shrinking from everything immodest, 
owppooivy expresses the control of the desires ; 7d kpateiv Ydovev Kai éxiOvuiov 
(Luther): “with modesty and propriety.’ *—It is to be noted that cwdpocivy 
(apart from Acts xxvi. 25: cwdpocbynce phuata axodbéyyouar, in Opposition to 
paivouat) occurs only here and in ver. 15, and that all words kindred to it 
(except cwgpovetv in Rom. xii. 3, opposed to tirepdpovety in 2 Cor. v. 18, 
denoting the opposite of the ecstatic state ; also in Mark y.15; Luke viii. 


KaTaOTOAH . . . 


elsewhere as feminine virtues. 


1It is necessary therefore to do, as van 
Oosterzee does, supply the participle mpoo- 
evxouevas with yuvaixas because of the wo- 
a@vTws. 

2JTn this sense the word is found, e.g. in 
Arrian (Epict. ii. 10), joined with aidés and 
nepotys.—In the passage of Josephus, B. J. 
li. 8.4: katacToAy Sé kal gX}Ma THMaTOS OmoLov 
Tots meta HoBov wardaywyoupevors Tavoty, Which 
is commonly quoted as a proof of the mean- 
ing “clothing,” the meaning is doubtful. 
Salmasius explains it: sedatus animus et 
remissus, elato et superbo tumentique oppo- 
situs, in contrast with opyjs, ver. 8; but in 
that case the added adjective coapucos is super- 
fluous. 
» %The two words are also placed together 


See Raphe- 
lius, who quotes, among others, the passage 
from Epictetus (Hnchir. chap. 62): mulieres 
in ornatau spem collocant omnem; quare 
operae pretium est, dare operam, ut sentiant, 
sibi non ob aliud honorem haberi, 7 To xoo- 
plat atvedGat, Kai aidjmoves ev swhpocvry. 
Although in the Cyropaedia (Book viii.) the 
two words are thus distinguished: Seyper (se. 
Cyrus) d€ aiém Kai cwhpoovvnv tyde, ws TOUS 
pév aidovmévous, Ta ev TW havepw aiaxpa dev- 
yovtas, Tous 5€ owhpovas, kat Ta ev TO ahavet, 
the distinction cannot be regarded as always 
valid.—Aristotle (het. i. 9) explains cwhpocvrvy 
in the following fashion: cwdpoavvy apety, de’ 
hv mpos Tas noovas TOV THMAaTOS OUTWS EXOVELY, 
@s 0 vOmos KEAEveL. 


104 THE FIRST -EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


35; 1 Pet. iv. 7), such as owgpovile, cwppovicpdc, co¢pwr, owpdvec, are found 
only in the Pastoral Epistles —yy év rAéyyaow x.t.4.] Instead of xAéypara, 
we have éuxdoxq [rpryor] (Isa. iii. 24: TWP) in 1 Pet. ili. 3, which is partic- 
ularly to be compared with this passage ; it denotes “ the artificial plaits 
of hair.”’'—xai ypvoiw] The «ai divides the ornament into two parts, 7Aéyyara 
belonging to the body itself, and what follows being the things put on the 
body. In 1 Pet. iii. 8, we have wepibeore ypvoiwv (comp. Rev. xvii. 4).—It 
is wrong to connect ypvoi with the previous m/éyu. as a hendiadys for 
riéyua ypvowv (Heinrichs).—i papyapitac] The gems are not named in 
Peter, and instead of iwaticpicg roAvteAge We have there évdvore ivatiov ; the 
adjective rodvreage (Matt.: pwaraxad ivaria) is contrasted with kéopcoc.—arn’ 
5 mpérec x.7.2.] Most expositors? refer 0? épywv ayabov to xoopeiv, and take 
OcocéBecav as asparenthesis.* But there are three points 
against this, viz., that the ornament of the women is already named in év 
KataoToA x.7.A., that the preposition dia does not suit with Kxooveiv (which 
is construed previously with év), and that “ good works” would be unsuit- 
ably described as ornament here, where he is speaking of the conduct of 
the women in the assemblies.of the church, unless we arbitrarily limit the 
general idea to offerings for the poor, as is done by Heydenreich and yan 
Oosterzee. Theodoret rightly joins 6? épy. ay. with the immediately pre- 
ceding érayyeA. OeoceB. (“ evoéBecav éxayyéAAeobe, Kal tv OC Epywv aperhv”’).S 
The comma before d:4, which is found in the editions, must therefore be 
deleted. [VII d.] Hofmann connects the words with what follows, taking 
dia in the sense of accompanying; but dca never has such a simple copu- 
lative meaning.o—The relative 6 stands here either for év rot» 6, for 
which Matthies appeals, but wrongly, to Rom. vi. 21 and x. 14; or more 
probably for «a? 6. So far as the meaning goes, the various reading o¢ 
(kaboc, Eph. v. 8) is correct. Hofmann wishes to refer 6 to kooyeiy éavtrac 
in such a way that “the latter is mentioned as a thing . . . seemly for 
women.” The intervening 4424, however, manifestly makes this con- 
struction impossible.—érayyeAAopévare Oeoo’éBevav | éxayyéAAeobar Usually means 
in the N. T. “promise.” Matthies’ accordingly renders the word here by 
“ sive information, show ;’” so, too, Luther ; “who therein manifest blessed- 
ness.” But it is more correct here to take the word in the sense in which 
profiteri artem is used, so that @eocéBeca is regarded as an art or a handi- 
craft. De Wette rightly says: “who make profession of blessedness ;” so, 
too, vi. 21; comp. Xenophon, Memor. i. 2,7: aperjv éxayyeAAduevoc (Ignatius, 
ad Ephes. chap. 14: ovdeic riot éxayyeAAduevog auapraver).—eooé Bera] only 
here in the N. T. (LXX. Gen. xx. 11; more frequently in the Apocrypha; 


O mpemer .) . 


1Clemens Alex. Paedag. iii. 11: mepimAokar 
ETALPLKGL TOV TPLXWV. 

2 Among them Wegscheider, Flatt, Heyden- 
reich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Ooster- 
zee, also Winer, p. 149, note 1 [E. T. p. 158, 
note 1]. 

3Van Oosterzee explains it as “a causal 
periphrasis to show why precisely this orna- 
ment is extolled by the apostle.” 


4So, too, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, etc.; 
and among more recent names, Mack, Mat- 
thies, and Plitt. 

5 Hofmann thus paraphrases the thought: 
“They are to do what is good, and to learn in 
atill seclusion. The former is that which is 
to be accompanied by the latter.” He appeals 
to 2 Cor. ii. 4. He does not prove, however, 
that that passage justifies such a paraphrase. 


CHAP. 11. 11, 12. 105 


GeoceByc, John ix. 81; LXX. Ex. xviii. 21), is equivalent to cioéBeca—di 
ipywv ayatov] must not be limited to works of benevolence alone. 
The addition of these words is fully explained by a comparison with 
2 Tim. iii. 5." 

Vv. 11,12. [On Vv. 11-15, see Note VIII., pages 112, 113.] Further injunc- 
tions for women.—yvr7 év jovyia pavbavétw] év jovyia, “ without speaking 
herself; pavédverv denotes here, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 31, attention to the word 
in order to learn from it what is necessary for advancing and building up 
the Christian life. [VIII a, b.]—év racy ixorayy] “in complete subordination,” 
i.e. without contradiction—The thought here expressed is to be filled up 
by what Paui says in 1 Cor. xiv. 385 (which passage should be particularly 
compared with this”): e dé te wabeiv BéAovow, év oikw Tobe iWiove avdpac érEpw- 
tatworv.—‘‘ Spiritual receptivity and activity in domestic life were recog- 
nized as the appropriate destiny of women, and therefore the female sex 
was excluded from the public discussion of religious subjects ” (Neander).§ 
Though in Christ there is no distinction, yet Christianity does not put an 
end to the natural distinctions ordained by God; it recognizes them in 
order to inform them with its higher life.—didaoxew 62 yvvaiki obk éxitpéxw] 
Awd. stands first in emphatic opposition to wavfavew ; in the parallel passage 
(1 Cor. xiv.) 6d. stands instead of the more general word Aadeiv.—ovdé 
abbervreiv avdpéc] Leo: “ aifevteiv et avbévty¢ apud seriores tantum scriptores 
ita occurrit, ut dominit notionem involvat; melioribus scriptoribus est 
avbévrnc idem quod airéyep.”* Luther has rightly: “that she be master 
of her husband;” whereas in the translation: “to assume to herself 
respect or mastery” (Heydenreich, de Wette, van Oosterzee), the notion 
of assumption is imported. Hofmann, too, is wrong when he says that 
avdevretv IN Conjunction with the genitive of the person should mean: “to 
act independently of this person, 7.e. as one’s own master” (!)—Many 
expositors (Matthies, and earlier, Estius, Calovius, and others) assume in 
this word a reference to domestic relations; whereas Heydenreich, de 
Wette, Wiesinger, and others, limit even this command to behavior in 
the assemblies for divine worship.6 This last is correct, as is shown by 
aan eiva ev Hovyia, Corresponding to év yovyia in ver. 11. 
tT. avdp. puts the prohibition to teach under a more general point of view, 


Yet ovdé avbevreiv 


and at the same time confirms it. 


The relation between writing and tears is 
obviously quite different from that between 
Jearning in stillness and good works. 

1Calvyin gives the connection with the pre- 
' ceeding words rightly: si operibus testanda 
est pietas, in vestitu etiam casto apparere 
haec professio debet. 

2Otto quotes the agreement of these pas- 
sages with one another as a proof that the 
letters are contemporaneous. It is, however, 
to be observed that Paul himself, in the 
words: @s év magats'tatis exkAnolats TOY aylwy 
(1 Cor. xi. 33), describes the maxim as one 
‘which he was seeking to establish in all the 


Nor can it be denied that women are 


churches. Hence there is nothing strange 
in his urging it on Timothy’s attention at a 
later period, just as he had urged it before on 
the Corinthians. 

3 Geschichte der Pflanzung der Kirche durch 
die Apost., Part I. p. 125. 

4See Valekenaer, Diatr. in Eurip. rell. chap. 
xviii. pp. 188 tf.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 120. 

5 Hofmann, iz opposition to these two views, 
maintains that the apostle here speaks of the 
“ Christian life in general,” “of all action for 
which there was occasion in ordinary life ;” 
but the context gives no ground for his asser- 
tion, 


(106 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


not avfevreiv 7. avdp. in the assemblies, because in the apostle’s opinion that 
does not beseem them at any time. The reason why not, is given in the 
verses that follow.—It is to be observed, further, that ver. 12 corresponds 
exactly with ver.11: yuv7 . . 


év Tdoy brorayy . 


. yuvaki; pavOavétw . : . SidacKew ovK éexitpéto ; 


. . od avdevTeiv Tov avdp.; év Hovyia . . . GAA’ eivac év Hovyia. 
This parallelism is clear proof that the same thing is spoken of in ver. 12 
as in ver. 11, which Hofmann denies. Still ver. 12 is not therefore super- 
fluous, since it both emphasizes and more precisely defines the particular 
ideas in ver. 11.—aA# eivac év yovyia| The same construction is found in 1 
Cor. xiv. 34. The infinitive is dependent on a SobAoua: to be supplied from 
ovn éxitpéxo—an abbreviated construction which occurs also in classic 
Greek.—De Wette rightly directs attention to these points, that we must 
not by arbitrary interpretations take away the clear definite meaning from 
the commands here laid down, in order to make them universal in appli- 
cation; and, on the other hand, that they are not to be considered as local 
and temporal ordinances: they are rather injunctions to be still held valid 
as applying to public assemblies.! 

Ver. 18. First reason for the previous prohibition, taken from the history 
of the creation. [VIII ¢.J—Ver. 14. The second reason, taken from the 
history of the fall. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we find proofs that 
the historical facts of the O. T. are to the apostle full of meaning as 
symbols of higher, universal truths. So here, the facts that Adam was 
first created, and that Eve, not Adam, was tempted by the serpent, are to 
him prototypes and proofs that it is becoming for the wife not aifevrei 
avdpéc, but to be meekly subordinate to the husband. Hence he says: 
"Addu yap mpatoc éxAdoy, eitra Kia. - The verb xAdooew occurs in the N. T. 
only here and in Rom. ix. 20, both times in its original meaning. The 
meaning “ create,” here appropriate to the word, is, however, found in the 
LXX. Gen. ii. 7, from which passage the apostle here has drawn (comp. 
also 2 Mace. vii. 23: Compare 1 Cor. xi. 2 ff., 
where the apostle says that the husband is eixwv Kat d6EFa Ocov, and the wife 
dda avdpéc, because the husband is not é« yvvaixédc, but the wife é& avdpéc. 
De Wette, without reason, thinks that the author of this Epistle to Timothy 
had that passage in mind. 

Ver. 14. kai ’Adaiu obk yrarhO7] In order to justify this expression, the 


wey: ae ; 
6 TAdoac avbporov yéveow). 


1Compare with this apostolic expression, 
Const. Apost. iii. 6: obx émutpémomev yuvatkas 
ddacke ev exkAnala, aAAG movov mpocevxEed Oat 
Tertull. De 
Virg. Vel.: non permittitur mulieri in eecle- 
sia loqui, sed nee docere, nee tinguere, nec 
ullius virilis muneris, nedum  sacerdotalis 
officii sortem sibi vindicare. It is curious 
that in the Apost. Const. it is permitted to 
women mpogevxeoOa in church, while here it 
is granted only tomentodoso. But, on the 
one hand, mpogevxeoOar in the Constitutions 
does not mean exactly prayer aloud ; and, on 
the other hand, this passage here does not 


Rare ; : 
kat tov didacKkaAwy émaxoverv. 


plainly and directly forbid zpocevxerbar to 
women; it only forbids distinctly d:dacKcew 
on their part.—There is the same apparent 
contradiction between 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and 1 
Cor. xi. 5, 13. While in the former passage 
Aadety is forbidden to women, in the latter 
mpocevxecOar and even mpodytevery are pre- 
supposed as things done by women, and the 
apostle does not rebuke it.—The solution is, 
that Paul wishes everything in church to be 
done evoxnmovws kat kata tag; while, on 
the other hand, he holds by the principle: 
“70 mvevpa pn oBevvuTe” (1 Thess. vy. 19). 
Meyer on 1 Cor. xi. 6 differs. 


GHAP aie 16-15. 107 


expositors have sought to define it more precisely, mostly by supplying 
mpatoc. So Theodoret; Tertullian, too (De Hab. Mul.), says, perhaps 
alluding to this passage: tu divinae legis prima es desertrix. Others, 
again, supply i706 Tov dgewe (Matthies: “ As the apostle remembers the O. T. 
story of the fall, there comes into his thoughts the cunning serpent by 
which Eve, not Adam, let herself be ensnared”’). De Wette thinks that 
the author is insisting on the notion be charmed, betrayed (by sinful desire), 
as opposed to some other motive to sin. Hofmann arbitrarily supplies 
with ’Adau ov« yrarity the thought: “so long as he was alone.’—The 
apparent difficulty is solved when we remember the peculiarity of alle- 
gorical interpretation, which lays stress on the definite expression as such. 
This here is the word azarav (or éararav). On this word the whole 
emphasis is laid, as is clearly shown by the very repetition of it. This 
word, however, in the Mosaic account of the fall, is used only of the 
woman, nut of the man, for in Gen. ii. 138 the woman expressly says: 
6 dguc Hratyoé we; the man, however, uses no such expression. And in the 
story there is no indication that as the woman was deceived or betrayed 
through the promises of the serpent, so was the man through the woman. 
—Adam did certainly also transgress the command, but not, as the woman, 
influenced by azazvy. Paul, remembering this, says: ’"Aday ob« yratHOy, 7 08 
yuy eSararnfeica. Bengel: serpens mulierem decepit, mulier virum non 
decepit, sed ei persuasit. To supply anything whatever, only serves there- 
fore to conceal the apostle’s real meaning.—7/ dé yury éSararTyHeioa Ev Tapa- 
Baoee yéyove] This betrayal of the woman by the serpent is mentioned by 
Paul also in 2 Cor. xi. 8, where he employs the same word: éazarg@v.— 
The emphasis, as is apparent from what precedes, is not on the last words, 
but on éfararyfeica; hence it is not right to supply tpéry with év rap. yey. 
IlapaB8acrc here, as elsewhere (oi obk gore véuoc, cide TapaBactc, Rom. iv. 15), 
is used in regard to a definite law.—The construction yeyovévac év occurs 
frequently in the N. T. in order to denote the entrance into a certain con- 
dition, a certain existence. De Wette: “fell into transgression.” Luther 
wrongly: “and brought in transgression.”—As to the thought itself, 
expositors find the force of this second reason to lie in the fact that in the 
fall the weakness of the woman, her proneness to temptation, was mani- 
fested, and that consequently it is not seemly for the woman to have 
mastery over the man. But did the man resist the temptation more 
stoutly than the woman? Paul nowhere gives any hint of that. The 
significant part of the Mosaic narrative to him is rather this, that the 
* judgment of God was passed upon the woman because she had let herself 
be betrayed by the serpent, and it is in accordance with this judgment that 
the husband is made lord over the wife.' 
Ver. 15. Swdjoera dé dia tHe TeKvoyoviac] coffoera dé IS IN Opposition to 
the previous év rapaBdce yéyove. Still this sentence is not intended merely 


1The right interpretation of this passage but then he is thinking of the man as the 
does not even in appearance contradict Rom. image of God, of the woman as the image of 
v. 12. In the latter, Paul does not mention the man. 
* the woman, but the man, as the origin of sin; 


108 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


to moderate the judgment pronounced in ver. 14 (Matthies); after the 
apostle has forbidden to the woman any activity in church assemblies as 
unbecoming to her, he now points to the destiny assigned her by God, the 
fulfillment of which brings salvation to her. The subject of cwfycera: is 7 
yurn, to be supplied from the preceding words; but, of course, it applies 
collectively to the whole sex, while referring specially to Eve.'—cwfjcera 
is to be taken here in the sense which it continually has in the N. T. (not 
then equivalent to “ she will win for herself merit and reward,” de Wette). 
Every reason to the contrary falls to the ground, if only we consider that 
texvoyovia is regarded as the destiny assigned to the woman by God, and 
that to the woman curnpia is assured by it under the condition given in 
the words following: éav «.7.A._ It is to be noted also, that though faith is 
the only source of salvation, the believer must not fail in fulfilling his 
duties in faith, if he is to partake in the owrpia—did is taken by several 
expositors (also Wiesinger) in the sense of “in;’’? but this is wrong, for 
either this signification “in” passes over into the signification “by means 
of,” or it has much the same force as “ notwithstanding, in spite of ” (Rom. 
li. 27; see Meyer on the passage); ds¢, however, cannot be used in this 
sense, since rexvoyovia would in that case have been regarded as a hin- 
drance to the attainment of the owrypia. This militates also against Hof- 
mann’s view, “that odfecdar did twoc has the same meaning here as in 1 
Cor iii. 15, to be saved as through something;” this explanation also 
makes the rexvoyovia appear to be something through which the woman’s 
ooleova: is endangered.’—rexvoyovia, a word which occurs only here in the 
N. T. (as also rexvoyovéw-only in chap. v. 14, and rexvorpogéw only in chap. v. 
10), can have here nothing but its etymological meaning. [VIII d.] 
Some, quite wrongly, have taken it as a term for the marriage state, and 
others have made it synonymous with rexvorpodia. This latter view is 
found in the oldest expositors.~—The question, how the rexvoyovia contrib- 
utes to the cwrypia, is answered by most by supplying® with the one or 


1Even Theophylact declared against the 
curions view, that Mary is to be taken here 
as subject. Clearly also Eve cannot here be 
meant. 

2Van Oosterzee translates éca by “ by means 
of,” and then says: “it simply indicates a 
condition in which the woman becomes a par- 
taker of blessedness,” leaving it uncertain in 


5 Most think of the faithful fulfillment of 
mmaternal duty in the education of children. 
Chrysostom: texvoyoviay, g@yo., TO wy jLovov 
TEKELV, AAG Kai KaTa Oedy avayayety.—Accord- 
ing to Heinrichs, Paul means here to say: 
mulier jam hoc in mundo peccatorum poenas 
luit, dua tHs Texvoy. eo, quod cum dolore par- 
turit, adeoque haeec texvoy. eam quasi ower 


what relation the apostle places rexvoyovia to 
owblec@ar. 

3Hofmann says in explanation: “If it is 
appointed to the woman to bear children in 
pain, she might succumb under such a 
burden of life;’ but, in reply, it is to be 
observed that rexvoyovia does not mean “to 
bear children with pain.” : 

Thus Theophylact remarks, not without 
wit: ov yevynoar povor Set, dAAG Kal TaLdevoat” 
TOUT® yap OvTws TeKvoyovia, ei SE ov, OVK eat 
' Texvoyovia, adAAa TexvopOopia extat Tals yuvarki. 


putanda est, et ipsa owgecOar da THs TeKvoyo- 
The passage quoted by Heinrichs, Gen. 
ili. 16, does not denote the texvoyovia as such, 
but the pains connected with it as a punish- 
ment of transgression. According to Plitt, 
the texvoy. serves to further the woman’s 
gwtmypia; on the one hand, because by the 
fulfillment of her wish gratitude is aroused 
within her; on the other hand, because of 
her care for her children she is preserved 
from many frivolities. 


vias. 


NOTES. 109 
the other something of which there is no hint in the words of the apostle, 
and by which the thought is more or less altered. This much may be 
granted, that Paul, by laying stress on the rexvoyovia (the occasion for 
which was probably the koAtwv yayety on the part of the heretics, chap. iv. 
3), assigns to the woman, who has to conduct herself as passive in the 
assemblies, the domestic life as the sphere in which—especially in regard 
to the children—she has to exercise her activity (comp. v. 14).—In order 
not to be misunderstood, as if he had said that the rexvoyovia as a purely 
external fact affects cwrypia, he adds the following words: é@v peivwow év 
miorer «.T.A. The subject of veivwow is the collective idea yy (see Winer, 
pp. 481, 586 [E. T. pp. 516, 631]), and not, as many older (Chrysostom and 
others) and later (Schleiermacher, Mack, Leo, Plitt) expositors think: 
“the children.” This latter might indeed be supplied from rexvoyovia, but 
it would give a wrong idea.—It is quite arbitrary, with Heydenreich, to 
supply “ man and wife.”—Paul uses the expressions év miatez «.7.2. to denote 
the Christian life in its various aspects. They are not to be limited to the 
relation of married life, tiotve denoting conjugal fidelity ; ayary, conjugal 
love; dy:acudc, conjugal chastity ; and cwdpocivy, living in regular mar- 
riage. Lwdpooivy is named along with the preceding cardinal virtues of the 
Christian life, because it peculiarly becomes the thoughts of a woman 
(comp. ver. 9), not because “a woman is apt to lose control of herself 
through her excitable temperament” (Hofmann). There is in the con. 
text no hint of a reference to female weakness.! 





Norres py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
Wile Vivenl—7. 


(a) The connection of the particle oiv of ver. 1, which has occasioned difficulty 
in the minds of some writers on this Epistle, is probably to be explained by the 
fact, already referred to, that the letter is an official, as well asa personal one. 
The official character is indicated at the beginning (i. 3), and is to be regarded as 
carried over to this chapter through i. 18, although the latter verse is not to be 
limited in its application simply to Timothy’s official duties—(b) Alf. regards 
rroveiofac as inthe middle voice because of the position in the sentence, which 
would, he thinks, throw too much emphasis on it if taken asa passive. It would 
seem, however, to be the simpler construction in such a sentence to make the 
prayers, etc., the subject of the infinitive as a passive verb, and so R. V. and the 
_ great majouity of the best comm. explain it—(c) Considering the official charac- 
ter of the letter, it can hardly be doubted that the Apostle refers in this passage to 
public, not private prayers. This reference to public service and meetings of the 
church is apparent, also, in the closing verses of the chapter, (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 2 ff, 


1De Wette asserts too much when he says 
that this passage is in contradiction with 1 
Cor. vii. 7 ff., 25 ff., 38 ff. The truth is rather 
that the matter is regarded from various 
points of view. In 1 Corinthians the apostle 
' ig delivering his judgment, while he con- 


siders the difficult position of Christians amid 
the hostility of the world, without for a mo- 
ment denying that rexvoyovia is an ordinance 
of God. Here, however, he is considering 
only the latter point, without entering into 
every detail. 


110 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


xiv. 34 ff). The argument for the same reference in the intermediate verses 
is, accordingly, a very strong one. This especial reference to public religious ser- 
vice is natural in a letter which, of course, could not, in such exhortations, be 
intended for the individual himself who was addressed, but must be designed to 
guide him in his oversight of the churches. The great prominence given to 
prayers for kings and those in authority (in high place, R. V.) is doubtless to be 
explained in connection with the peculiarities of the age, and with the tendencies 
of the Pauline doctrine of Christian liberty and equality to lead some to excess, 
so that they became disposed to carry the application of it unduly into the sphere 
of civil and social relations. It may be questioned whether, in the changed con- 
dition of the present, such peculiar prominence would be given to this subject,— 
the exhortation to pray for magistrates being placed as the “first of all” exhorta- 
tions. The peculiar necessity for such a state of mind and feeling towards the 
existing authorities as would indute Christians to make public supplications for 
them, and the evil or danger of the opposite state of mind, are indicated by the 
iwwa clause, which gives the end in view of the exhortation.—The same thing may, 
no doubt, be said, mutatis mutandis, of the directions and statements with regard 
to the women, as also those respecting servants or slaves, in these and the other 
Epistles of Paul. Practical exhortations or rules of this character must vary in 
some degree, in respect to the prominence and force given to them, with the 
changes in circumstances and the progress of public sentiment, which are the 
result of the working of Christianity in the history of the world. “The political 
duty of men in a Christian state,’ says Dr. Washburn in Schaff’s ed. of Lange’s 
Comm., “cannot be the same with that of the primitive church under a Nero.”— 
(d) The connection of ver. 3 with vv. 1, 2, is evidently that of a ground or reason 
for the fulfillment of the duty to which he exhorts them. The connection of ver. 
4 with ver. 3 is that of proof or evidence that God would have all men attain sal- 
vation. The immediate connection in both verses, accordingly, is with the idea 
of “all men,” which is suggested at the opening of ver. 1. We must believe, 
however, that there is a reference in the author’s mind to that which he had made 
so prominent—the prayers for kings and persons in authority,—and that his sug- 
gestion is founded upon some hesitation on the part of many Christian believers 
to offer such prayers. As Dr. Plumptre says (Schaff’s Pop. Com.), “ Men were 
tempted to draw a line of demarcation in their prayers, and could hardly bring 
themselves to pray for a Nero ora Tigellinus. St. Paul’s argument is that such 
prayers are acceptable with God because they coincide with that will which, 
though men in the exercise of the fatal gift of freedom may frustrate it, is yet 
itself unchangeable.”—(e) OéAe: of ver. 4, as distinguished from BovAouat, denotes 
the desire or gracious will of God, what He would have, but not that purpose 
which will necessarily be carried out. The doctrine of an unlimited atonement is 
implied in this passage, but not that of universal salvation. The universality 
of the provision for all is set forth in different places in Paul’s writings. Univer- 
sality of realization of the offered blessing is not declared. It is made dependent 
on the action of man in accepting or rejecting the offer. Comp. iy. 10, in connec- 
tion with this verse, as indicating the Apostle’s view so far as it is given in this 
Epistle—(f) The unity of God (ver. 5) is presented here, not for its own sake, 
but as bearing upon the statement of ver. 4. This verse, therefore, cannot pro- 
perly be urged as an argument against the divinity of Christ. The fact that there 
is one God and one mediator is a ground of confidence that there is a common 








NOTES. ier 


salvation forall. The demands of the thought, accordingly, occasion the presen- 
tation of God and Christ in their separateness, rather than their oneness with 
each other, and also cause the setting forth of Christ as avpwzoc, rather than fede. 
R. V. brings out the force of the anarthrous avfp. by the words “himself man.” 
The rendering of A. V., the man Christ Jesus, is misleading. avfp is added, appar- 
ently, as indicating the community of nature between the mediator and those for 
whom he acts. Comp. Heb. ii. 10 ff—(qg) The connection in thought between the 
first clause of ver. 6 and i. 15,and the “healthful teaching ” spoken of in i. 10, 
which Huther points out,is evident, and the fact of this connection places the true 
construction of 70 zaptipiov substantially beyond doubt. japripiov is the testi- 
mony which consists in the proclamation of the great truth of the gospel just 
mentioned, 6 dove «7.2, That the writer’s thought moves on without any break 
of connection from i. 3 to this point, is shown by the striking correspondence be- 
tween vy. 6, 7, and the yerses of chap. 1. which have just been referred to. The 
want of logical connection which de Wette and some others find in ov of ver. 1 
cannot, therefore, have been apparent to, or intended by, the writer.—(/) In Matt. 
xx. 28, Mk. x. 45, we find the expression Ai7pov avti roA/ Gv, with the words dovvar 
_Tiv woxnv avtov, These passages show that the reference here is to Christ’s giving 
up His life. It is worthy of notice that the preposition av7i occurs, in such phrases, 
only in the two cited verses of Matt. and Mk. Elsewhere the prep. is either 
ixép, as here, or wepi. The force of avri is here, however, possibly sugzested by 
the compound avtiAvtpov.—(i) The introduction of the words a//feiav 2éyw, 00) 
werdouat (ver. 7) must be regarded as intended for the church and other readers, 
rather than Timothy himself. The tendency to the repetition of expressions such 
as make up this verse—independently of these particular words,—which we 
observe in this Epistle, must be admitted to be singular; but it cannot be urge | 
as a very weighty argument against the Pauline authorship, when it is remem- 
bered that the Apostle was always disposed to speak of himself and his own ex- 
periences; that he had now for years seen errors developing, and assaults of diffe r- 
ent kinds made upon the doctrine which he preached; and that he was moving 
onward, at this time, into his later life. Instances of an increasing tendency of 
this character among prominent men of our own day, who are not far from the 
age of the Apostle when he wrote this letter, could be easily pointed out. 


VII. Vv. 8-10. 


(a) BovAouat is regarded by Huther as equivalent to “I ordain.” It expresses 
more than 6éA@ and seems to carry with it here, and in Tit. iii. 8, the force of 
mapayyé/7@, which we find in other Epistles. Holtzm. (Tit. iii. 8) says it is an 
expression of apostolic authority, which is not connected with the word as used 
‘by Paul in his undoubtedly genuine writings—(b) The position of tpocehyeatac 
in the sentence is, probably, due to the connection (o/v) with the idea of prayer 
as presented in ver. 1.. Thecontrast of rov¢ avdpac with yvvaixac (ver. 9), together 
with what issaid respecting women in vy. 11 ff, makes it probable that a certain 
emphasis was, also, Intended to be placed on totic avdpac, so that, in ver. 9, Koouelv 
alone, and not this verb in connection with poset yeaa, is the object of Borsouar 
as relatel to that verse. In the modifving participial clause, lifting up holy hans, 
ete., the word da/ove is the one on which the empliasis is to be placed, and th n 
. the words yopic «7.4, are added in further explanation. On diasoyiouor comp. 


112 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


note by Am. Ed. on Phil. ii. 14.—(c) Ell. agrees with de W. and some others in 
making karaoroAy of ver. 9 substantially, though Ell. says not exactly, equivalent 
to kataoriuare of Tit. ii. 3. He would translate here in seemly guise—the prevail- 
ing idea here being, as he suggests in his note on Tit. ii. 3, “ outward deportment 
as enhanced by what is purely external, dress, etc.,” while in Tit. it is “ outward 
deportment as dependent on something more internal, e.g. manner, gesture, ete.” 
L.& S., Grimm, Rob., Alf., Fairb., Plumptre, R. V., and others agree with 
Huther, and this view seems, on the whole, the best. Holtzm. gives both views, 
but apparently is disposed to favor that of Huther. He calls attention to the fact 
that the suggestions of the verse have reference to the meetings of the church for 
worship, and adds that there is no prohibition of all adornment of dress on the 
part of women on other occasions—(d) The view of Huther, that dv épywv ayatov 
is to be taken as qualifying éray)eAAouévaic, is not favored by most commentators. 
The objections which he urges ate certainly worthy of serious consideration; but 
the use of 6, in such a sentence, for év Toi7w 6 or for Ka 6 seems quite improb- 
able, and the natural contrast would appear to be between one kind of adornment 
(uy év 7Aéyuaow «,7.A,) and another (d¢ épy. ay.). The reference of the sentence 
is to public assemblies, but this does not seem necessarily, as Huther apparently 
supposes, to limit the épy. ay. to offerings for the poor, ¢.e. things done in the 
meetings. The women are to appear inthe meetings with the adornment, not of 
dress, but of their general good works. 


. 


VIII. Vv. 11-15. 


(a) The views of Paul with reference to the speaking of women in the public 
assemblies are found expressed in 1 Cor. xi. 2 f., xiv. 34 ff, and in this passage. 
In 1 Cor. xi., there is but little on the subject, but, as the thing which the Apostle 
disapproves of is praying and prophesying by the women without a veil, it seems 
not improbable that such prophesying or prayer, provided the veil is worn, is, 
under some circumstances, allowed. In 1 Cor. xiv., there is a more full statement, 
and one which corresponds very closely with that which is contained in these verses. 
The phrase év 7ovyie here is equivalent to ovyatwoav of 1 Cor. xiv. 84; Aadetv of 
that verse is substantially equivalent to d:daoxecv of this; while the words yav¥a- 
vet, UroTacoeoVa or its kindred noun, and éztpé7 are used in both alike. The 
grounds of the prohibition, ete., however, are somewhat different in the two cases. 
The two grounds here given are, (1) the fact that the man was created before the 
woman, (2) that the woman fell into transgression through being deceived. The 
first of these points is suggested, in a slightly different form of expression, in 1 
Cor. xi. 8,9, but neither of them appears in 1 Cor. xiv. In that passage, on the 
other hand, the reason given why the woman should not speak is, that it is 
aicypov for her to do so, and the reason for her subjection is, that the law requires 
it. As to the matter of speaking, the objection, in both 1 Cor. xi. and xiy., seems 
to lie more exclusively in the region of propriety and what is becoming. Here, 
it is connected with arguments derived from the story of Adam and Eve.—(b) If 
the expressions of the Apostle are interpreted naturally, and according to legiti- 
mate rules.of interpretation, there would seem to be no question as to what his views 
were ;—namely, that, in the condition of things in the particular churches to which 
he was writing, at least, (or in all the churches of his time, perhaps, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 
16, xiv. 86), the speaking or teaching of women in the church meetings should 


NOTES. 113 


not be permitted. A possible exception is, perhaps, made in 1 Cor. xi., in case a 
woman was inspired by the gift of prophecy. Even then, however, she was to 
have a symbol of subordination on her head.—(c) The arguments which are set 
forth in the passage in the epistle before us are not such as would, probably, be 
brought forward by writers at the present time, and the aicypéryc, or indecency, 
of such an act on the part of a woman would not be felt by the ordinary Chris- 
tian mind of to-day as keenly, as the Apostle apparently felt it at that time. The 
change is, doubtless, owing to the influence which Christianity has had upon the 
condition of woman, and upon the estimate placed by man upon her. As to the 
perpetual force of the prohibition here given, it will depend, in part at least, on 
the question how far, in practical matters of this character, directions are to be 
looked for in the Scriptures, or indeed are possible, which shall be equally adapted 
to all circumstances—even to opposite conditions.—(d) The reference of t7¢ Tekvo- 
yoviag (ver. 15) to “the relation in which woman stood to the Messiah ”—the child 
bearing—which Ell. favors, and which is also advocated by Hammond and Words., 
and adopted by the English Revisers in the text of R. V., is rejected by other 
comm., and even passed, almost or altogether, without notice by some of high 
authority. Alf. says, it is “a rendering which needs no refutation.” Plumptre, 
with somewhat less positiveness, says, “ It is scarcely credible that St. Paul, if he 
meant this, would have expressed it so obscurely.” Huther, de W., Holtz., and 
others, make only the slightest allusion to it. A. R. V., on the other hand, while 
not allowing it a place in the text, inserts it in the margin. The position taken 
by the American Revisers is, perhaps, to be accepted, but the explanation given 
by iluther as to this and the other words of this verse is, more probably, the cor- 
rect one. 


114 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


CHAPTER ITI. 


Ver. 1. riotéc] Instead of this, D has avbpérioc, and some Latin Fathers 
have humanus. “ Haec lectio vetustior est Hieronymo. Quod si vero vetustior 
Hieronymo, vetustior quoqne est nostris codicibus omnibus. Nemo tamen ita 
temerarius est, ut eam probaret,” Matthaei—Ver. 2. Instead of vy@a2eov, Griesb., 
following the weightiest authgrities, accepted the form vydddcov; so, too, Scholz, 
Matthaei, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch—vVer. 3. The words yz aicypoxepd7 are left out 
in A DFG 5, 6, 17, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. ete. Griesb. is right, therefore, in strik- 
ing them out; they were probably interpolated from Tit.i.7. De Wette’s sug- 
gestion, that they may have been omitted intentionally as superfluous, since 
agiAapyvpov follows, is very improbable; comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. on this 
passage.— Ver. 4. For tpowtdyevov, 8 has the form tpovotavéuevor, occurring only 
in later authors—Ver. 6. Several cursives have the reading «ai wayida after 
dvaB6Aov, which, however, is manifestly taken from the next verse—Ver. 7. dei dé 
avtov} So Griesb. and Scholz, following the Ree. ; Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. left 
out av7ov, because it is not found in A F G H. 17, Copt. Boern.; in Matthaei it 
stands without dispute. The insertion is more easily explained than the emis- 
sion.—Ver. 9. For év cadapa ovvedjocr,® has the singular reading: Kai xkadapag 
cvverd7oewc—which can only be explained from an oversight occasioned by the 
genitive before.—Ver. 14. raxvov] Lachm. and Buttm. read év rayev, following A 
C D* 17, 71, 73, al. (rayeiov and tayéwe are also found). The Rec., which has the 
testimony of D*** F G K L, al., Chr. Theodoret, al., and is retained by Tisch., is” 
the more difficult reading; besides, in the other passages of the N. T. where the 
word occurs, the comparative form can be easily explained; év tdyer seems to be an 
explanatory correction.—In ver. 15, D* Arm. Vulg. Clar. Or. Ambrosiast. have o« 
inserted after dei— Ver. 16. For the Rec. O¢6¢, the most important authorities have 
the reading 6¢, as A C F G* 8 17, 73, 181. Further, the Copt. Sahid. and Gothic 
versions, also the Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm., have the relative. Orig., Theod. Mops., 
fpiph., Cyr., Al., Jerome, Entherius, beyond doubt, found the latter reading in 
their Mss. ; with several others it is at least probable. ~The Rec. @cdc is found, on 
the other hand, in D*** K L, in nearly all cursives, in the edd. Arab. p. Slav. 
Ms., and besides in Greg. Nyss. (who seems once, however, to have read 6c) Chrys. 
Theodoret, Didym. (De T'rinitate, p. 83) Damase. Oecum. Theophyl. In Ignatius 
(Ep. ad Ephes. 3.19) we find Oe0¢ avipurivw¢ gavepodpevog ; in the Apost. constitt.: * 
Ocd¢ Kips oO éripaveic yuiv Ev capKi; in Hippol.: Osd¢ év oGuatt épavepody , in 
Gregor. Thaum. (see pot. Apollin. in Photius): Oed¢ év capxi gavepwIeic—all 
which passages seem to testify in favor of Oeé¢—In the ms. gr. D* is found the 
reading 6, The It. and Vulg. have: mysterium s. sacramentum, quod manifes- 


10n the point that in A and C there was _ vol II. pp. 56-76; further, Tisch. Proleqg. ad 
originally written not ®= but OS, comp Cod. Ephr. sec, vii. p. 39, excursus on 1 Tim 
Griesb. 1n Symb crit. vol. 1. pp viii-liv., and lil. 16, 


CHAP. Il. 1, 2. 115 


tatum est, and in this they are followed by the Latin Fathers, excepting Jerome 
himself. This translation does not, however, point necessarily to the reading 6; 
it might also be taken from 6¢, which was referred to “vorjpiov, Till Wetstein, 
the reading 6¢ was generally held to be the right one,—later also by Matthaei, 
Tittm. Scholz, Hahn, Heydenr, Linck, Mack ; the reading 0 is specially defended 
by Wetstein and Schulthess. Almost all later critics and expositors, both on 
external and internal grounds, have rightly preferred the reading 6c, which is 
accepted also by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Comp. the thorough investigation by 
Reiche, Comment. crit. ii., on the passage. 


Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note IX. pages 133-135.] After speaking of the 
behavior of men and women in the church-assemblies, Paul goes on te 
give instructions regarding the proper qualifications of office-bearers “u 
the church. He begins emphatically with the introductory words : x:ord¢ 
6 Adyoc, which here, as in i. 15, do not refer to what precedes (Chrysostom, 
Erasmus, and others), but to what follows. [[X a.J—ei tice émoxorie 
opéyetac] Since éricxorg corresponds with éxicxoroc in ver. 2, the word does 
not denote here generally “ the office of one who is set over others” (Hof- 
mann), but specially “ the office of a bishop ;” for only in this way can the 
inferences in vy. 2 f. be drawn from what is said here. Why the previous 
words moti¢ 6 Adyoc should not be in agreement with this, we cannot 
understand.—Emoxory has a similar meaning in Acts i. 20, where it de- 
notes the office of apostle; comp. Meyer on the passage. In the N. T. 
the word usually means “the visitation.”—dpéyerac does not necessarily 
imply here, as de Wette thinks, the notion of ambitious striving; comp. 
Heb. xi. 16.—The ground of the dpéyec#a: may indeed be ambition, but it 
may also be the zeal of faith and love. The apostle does not blame the 
opéyecdac in itself; he merely asks us to consider that the éxicxorg is a 
kadov Epyov, and that not every one therefore may assume it.—xatovd épyor 
éxudvuei] Leo and others take épyov here in the sense of 7i; but it seems 
more correct to hold by the meaning: “ work, business” (Luther, Mat 
thies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others); comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5; 
épyov Toincov evayyedotov ; 1 Thess. v. 18, where the church is exhorted é:a 
To épyov avrav to the love of the mpoictauevor. It is, however, very doubtful, 
to say the least, that the word is chosen to lay stress on the thought that 
the éxicxor# is an office of work and not of enjoyment (Jerome: “ opus, 
non dignitatem, non delicias;”’ Bengel: “negotium, non otium ”).— 
Kadov, see 1.18; 2 Tim. iv. 7. 

Ver. 2. Aci obv tov éxioxorov averiAnrtov eiva k.7.A.] Tov éxioxororv, aS a Name 
for the superintendent of the congregation, only occurs in the Pastoral 
Epistles (here and at Tit.i.7), and in Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1 (the verb 
éxvoxoreiv is found in 1 Pet. v. 2). There can be no doubt that in the N. 
T. the éicxoro: and the rpeoBirepor denote the same persons. [IX }.] The 
question why these different names should be given to the same persons 
has been differently answered. 


RemMarK.—Baur supposes that every single town had originally one superin- 
tendent, who in his relation to the congregation was called éxicxo7oc, but that 


116 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 


when several érickorov over single congregations were taken together, they were 
for the most part designated by the co-ordinate name of zpeoBirepor. He finds the 
chief support for his opinion in the passages, Tit. i. 5: twa xataorhon¢e Kata réAwv 
mpeoButépove, and Acts xiv. 23: yetpotovyoavtec . . . mpeaButépove Kat’ éxKAnoiar ; 
but the form of expression here used does not necessarily imply that every single 
town (or congregation) received or was to receive only one presbyter. Since xara 
méAw (éxkAyoiav) means: by cities, 7. e. in every city, and the plural (zpeoBurépovc) 
is herewith joined with it, it may be taken in Baur’s sense, but it may also be as 
well taken to mean that the plural refers to each single city. The passage in 
Acts xv. 21, to which Baur appeals, proves nothing for his view, since it is well 
known that there were several synagogues in each city of the Jewish country.— 
According to the view of Kist,! the Christians in any one place formed originally 
several house-congregations, each of which had its particular superintendent. 
The college of presbyters then consisted of the superintendents of those house- 
congregations in one city, which, taken together, were regarded as a congregation. 
‘he passage in Epiphanius, Haer. lxix. 1,? shows that in later times such an 
arrangement did exist; but there is no passage in the N. T. to prove that that was 
the original arrangement. In the N. T. the presbyters are always named as the 
superintendents of one congregation, and there is nowhere any hint that each 
house-congregation had its special superintendent. Even when James (vy. 14) 
enjoins that a sick man is to summon Tove mpeoBurépove tie éxkAnoiac,—and not 
the presbyter of the house-congregation of which he was a member,—his words 
are clearly against Kist’s view.—The most probable theory is, that originally the 
superintendents of the single congregations—according to the analogy of Jewish 
custom—bore the name of mpeofirepo, but, that, in so far as they were éricKxo7ovr- 
Tec in reference to the congregation, they were called éxicxoro.; comp. Acts. xx. 
17 and 28.—There are, however, two striking facts to be noticed. In the first 
place, Paul in his epistles (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) makes use of the word 
éxioxoroc only in Phil. i. 1, and of the word zpeoirepor not at all. Nay, he almost 
never mentions the superintendents of the congregation except in Eph. iv. 11, 
where he calls them Touuéveg Kai didaoKkador, and 1 Thess. v. 12, where he mentions 
them as tpoiorduevor tuav (comp. also Rom. xii. 8: 6 tpoicrawevoc) ; comp., how- 
ever, the passages quoted above frdém Acts. From this it is clear that at first his 
attention was directed to the congregation only in its indivisible unity, and only 
by degrees does he give more prominence to-its leaders. We cannot, however, 
conclude from this, either that the congregations in the earlier period had no 
leaders, for it lay in the very nature of a congregation to have some kind of 
leading; or that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, for why in the 
later period of his career should circumstances not so have shaped themselves 
that he thought it necessary to give the leaders more prominence ?—The second 
striking fact is, that both in this passage and in Tit. i. 7 the singular éxioxoroc and 
not the plural évioxo7oz is used, though in the latter passage the plural peoBirepox 
immediately precedes, and here at ver. 8 we have the plural dcdkovoc (comp. also 
v.17: of Kadae mporotates mpeoBitepor). Is there any reason for this in the 
nature of the episcopate? The fact certainly might be interpreted to favor 





\[llgen’s Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol. Il. 2, pp. - ’AAcEavSpeca rd Eva apxrerioxoTov ovaat, kai 
47 ff. kar’ iav ravtais émiteTaymevor eiol mperBuTe- 
2 Ooar exkAnoiat THs KaBoALKHs exxAyaias ev pot dia Tas exkAnotagtiKas Xpelas TOY OlKNTOPwY 


CHAP, Itt. 2. 117 


Kist’s view; but it may more simply and naturally be explained from the fact that 
both times a t¢ precedes, and this almost by necessity compels the use of the 
plural after it. 


Ovv] is not simply a particle of transition. From the fact that the 
érioxory 18 a Kaddv épyov, the apostle deduces the necessity of a blameless 
character on the part of the éricxoroc; Bengel: bonum negotium bonis 
committendum.—averiAyrrov eivac] In enumerating the qualities which an 
éxioxorog must possess, the apostle begins appropriately with a general 
idea; so also Tit. 1.7: averiAnrroc, equivalent to 7 mapéyov katyyopiac adopuhy, 
Schol. Thucyd. v. 17. It is important that they who stand at the head of 
the church should lead an irreproachable life in the opinion both of Chris- 
tians and of non-Christians.—yva¢ yovacxog avdpa] [LX c.] This expression 
cannot here, be properly referred to polygamy; for, although polygamy 
might at that time be still found among the civilized heathen, and even 
among the Jews,’ it was as a rare exception. Besides, there is an 
argument against such an interpretation in the phrase évd¢ avdpoc yuvg, v. 
9; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which abso- 
lutely never occurred.—Most recent expositors? take the expression as 
referring to a second marriage after the death of the first wife. Heyden- 
reich quotes many testimonies from the earlier Fathers to justify this 
view. The results which these give are the following: Firstly, Many held 
marriage after the death of the first wife to be something immoral. Athena- 
goras® calls second marriage a evrper7¢ woryeia; and Tertullian repudiates 
it utterly, as do the Montanists. Secondly, This was, however, by no means 
the view that generally prevailed. It had many decided opponents, but 
even opponents of the view regard* abstinence from a second marriage 
as something praiseworthy, nay, meritorious. Hermas® and the later 
Fathers, as Chrysostom, FEpiphanius, Cyril, all write in this strain. 
—Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, iii. p. 461) says, that he who marries 
a second time does not commit sin. Thirdly, As to those who held office 
in the church, it was a general principle that they should not marry a 
second time. The proof of this is the objection which Tertullian puts in 
the mouth of his opponents against his condemnation of second marriages: 
adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, ut solos qui sunt in 
Clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit (de Monogamia, chap. 12). Origen’s 
words are in complete accordance with this: ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus 
non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt; neque enim episcopus, nec 
presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digami.—On the other 


1Comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. c. Tryph.; commentarium, quae reperiri potuerunt; ed. 
Chrysostom on the passage; Josephus, Anffq. O. F. Fritzsche, pp. 150-152. 


vii. 2. ; 5 Past. mandat. iv. chap. iv: dic, Domine, si 
2Leo, Mack, de Wette, Heydenreich, Wies- vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit et nupserit 

inger, van Oosterzee, Plitt. aliquis eorum, num quid peccat? Qui nubit, 
3 Leg. pro Christo, p. 37, edit. Colon. non peccat; sed si per se manserit, magnum 
4Still there are exceptions, such as Theo- sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum. 

dore of Mopsuestia, who shows his freedom Sou yap kexwAvTaL mpds TOU vosLoU" OV mANpOL 


of thought in arguing most decidedly against O€ Tis KaTa TO EeVayyeALov WoALTELas THY KaT 
this view; see Theodori ep. Mops. in N. T. — éwitacw TeAevétyTa, 


118 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


hand, there is a weighty counter-argument in the fact that the earlier 
expositors of the Pastoral Epistles (Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, 
Oecumenius) do not share in this view,! though the practice prevailing in 
their day must have made the interpretation to them an obvious one. 
Besides, nowhere else in the N. T. is there the slightest trace of any ordi- 
nance against second marriages; nay, in Rom. vii. 2, 3, and also in 1 Cor. 
vii. 39, Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1 Cor. 
vii. 8, he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this 
epistle, v. 14, he says: Botdoua vewrépac (ygpac) yaueiv. It would certainly 
be more than strange if the apostle should urge the younger widows to a 
step which would hinder them later in life from being received into the class 
of church-widows (see on chap. v. 9)—Appeal has been made to the facts 
that the nuptiae secundae were held to be unseemly for women even among 
ihe heathen?; but it is to be observed, on the other hand, that it was con- 
sidered in no way objectionable for a man to marry again after the death of 
his wife, and that there exists no trace of the opposite principle. (There is 
no ground for Heydenreich’s opinion, that the priests highest in rank, e. g. 
the Pontifex Maximus, could only be married once.) Hence, neither 
Christians nor non-Christians could be offended if the presbyters of the 
churches were married a second: time, and Paul would have laid down a 
maxim which in his day had never been heard of. The undecided oppo- 
sition to second marriages appeared among the Christians only in the 
post-apostolic age, when asceticism was already taking a non-Pauline 
direction, and was therefore inclined to give its own interpretation to the 
apostle’s words. Besides, the expression here, as also in Tit. i. 6, stands in 
the midst of others, which denote qualities to be possessed not only by the 
bishop, but also by every Christian as such. Accordingly, there is good 
ground for taking the disputed expression simply as opposed to an 
immoral life, especially to concubinage. What he says then is, that a 
bishop is to be a man who neither lives nor has lived in sexual intercourse 
with any other woman than the one to whom he is married (Matthies, 
Hofmann’), Thus interpreted, the apostle’s injunction is amply justified, 
not only -in itself, but also in regard to the extraordinary laxness of 
living in his day, and it. is in full harmony with the other injunctions. 
The expression under discussion might also be possibly referred to 
successive polygamy, é.¢. to the re-marriage of divorced persons, but its 
terms are too general to make such a reference certain.A—v7¢diu0v] only 


1Chrysostom places the two views together: 
ov vomobeTav TOUTO HyatY, ws mH civar ekdv avev 
TovtTou (yuvatkos) yiver@ar' aAAa THY apmeTpLay 
KwAdvwv, érerdyn emt Tov "Iovdaiwy e&nv, kat dev- 
Tépors Optadery yap.ots, Kal Svo ExeLy KaTa TAVTOV 
yuvatkas. J 

2Comp. Rein, Das rémische Privatrecht, pp. 
211, 212, and the Latin word univira. 


8 Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 421) says: 


“The injunction is, that the husband have no 
other wives in addition to his own wife, and 


the widow (chap. v. 9) no other husbands in’ 
addition to her own husband.” So also in his 
¢omment. on Tit, i. 6. 

4As a matter of course, Paul did not, as 
Carlstadt thought, mean in these words to 
command the bishop to marry; but, on the 
other hand, there is at bottom a presuppo- 
sition that it is better for a bishop to be 
married than to be unmarried (see vv. 4, 5).— 
We should note also as an exegetical curiosity, 
that some Catholic expositors, in the interests 


CHAP! Troe. 119 


here and in ver. 11 (Tit. ii. 2). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to 
wh oivy TOARG mpooéyorra, ver. 8; but it is also used in a kindred sense 
(like the Latin sobrius) to denote one who is not enchanted nor intoxicated 
by any fleshly passion. It is used, therefore, of sobriety of spirit. This is 
the meaning of the word here, where it is joined immediately with cé¢pova, 
and where the original sense follows in the word zapo.oc, ver. 3. Even 
the root-word v7go occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1 
Thess. v. 6, 8, where it is joined with ypyyopeiv, and stands in. opposition to 
the spiritual caGeidevv and wefiev; and in 1 Pet.iv.7, where it is also connected 
with cugpovetv.eagpova, récpuov] see 1. 9—Bengel: quod cé¢gpwr est intus, 
id xéoutoc est extra. Theodoret: kéoptoc nai p6éypate Kai oyfjuate Kai BAEupare 
kat Badiouatt woTe Kai dia TOV CMUuaToc daivecHar THY THE WvyAC owhpoobvyv.— 
giAdEevov] in special reference to strangers who were Christian brethren; 
comp. 1 Pet. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 2; Rom. xii. 18.—d.daxrixév] “able to teach ” 
(Luther); “good at teaching” (van Oosterzee). Acdaxtixéc is one who pos- 
sesses everything that fits him for teaching, including also the inclination 
(Plitt: “inclined to teach”) or the “willingness” (Hofmann). Hofmann is 
wrong in specializing it into “a moral quality.” That is justified neither 
by the etymology of the word (comp. the similarly-formed rpaxrixdc, ypa- 
gixéc, etc.) nor by the position in which it stands here or in 2 Tim. ii. 24. 
The word is found elsewhere only in Philo, De Praem. et Virt. 4, not in 
classic Greek. Though the public address in the congregation (both that 
of the diackatia and that of the xpodyreia, 1 Cor. xii—xiv.) was permitted 
to every one to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the ydpioua, still the 
éxickoroc in particular had to know how to handle doctrine, in instructing 
the catechumens, in building up the faith of the church, and in refuting 
heretics (see Tit. 1. 9); hence Paul, in Eph. iv. 11, calls the zoiuevec of the 
church, d:dacKaior. 

Ver. 3. The positive characteristics are now followed by two that are 
negative (or three, according to the Rec.): 7) xdpowov| This word occurs 
only here and in Tit. 1.7. Though it is used (comp. rapowéo, LX-X. Isa. 
xli. 12) also in the wider sense, as equivalent to contumeliosus (Josephus, 
Antiq. vi. 10, where it stands opposed to the word cw¢poveiv), yet there is 
here no sufficient ground for departing from its original sense. It is true 
that, as Bengel indicates, the 427 érvecx# afterwards seems to be in favor of 
the wider meaning here, without special reference to drunkenness; but 
the contrast is the same in the other case, if we only remember that rapov- 
voc does not mean simply “drunken” but “impudent, arrogant in intoxi- 
cation.” —nq rAgernv] This word also may be taken in a narrower and a 
wider sense. Here, as in Tit. i. 7, it denotes the passionate man who is in- 
clined to come to blows at once over anything. With these two ideas there 
are three plaeed in contrast; not, however, in exact correspondence, for in 


of celibacy, have explained the word yvuvy of refutation which is accorded to it by Winer, 
the ehurch.—The strange opinion of Bret- pp. 111 f. [E. T. p. 117 f]. 

schneider, that jas is here the indefinite 1Comp. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 981, where 
article, and that Paul meant a bishop should the scholiast explains it #e@vgos Kal UBprotis, 
‘be married, hardly needed the elaborate see Pape on the word. 


120 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


that case the reading of the Rec., i) aio ypoxepd7, would be indispensable, and 
for this reading there is too little testimony; but in such a way that the 
conduct denoted in the one case is opposed to thatin the other.—aa7’ éxcerky, 
auayov, agiAdpyvpov] In Tit. ili. 2, as here, the first two expressions stand 
together. “Ayuayoc does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.  ’Ezvecxje does not 
mean “ yielding,” for it does not come from eixw, but from eixé¢ (ovna).—The 
nearest meaning is “beseeming.” As used, however, it has mostly the 
sense of moderateness and gentleness (in Plutarch, Pyrrh. 23.—éruveikdc is 
used along with zpawc). Luther rightly: “mild.” "Auayoc is equivalent to 
peaceful; Luther: “not quarrelsome.”—<agiAdapyvpov (only here and in 
Heb. xiii. 5; @cAdpyvpoc, 2 Tim. i. 2 and Luke xvi. 14; the substantive 
@iAapyvpia, 1 Tim. vi. 10) lays stress on a point of which no hint was given 
before. It is joined with djayoc, since avarice necessarily brings strife 
with it. 

Ver. 4. In the second verse, the apostle touched on the subject of mar- 
riage-life; here, he directs how the bishop is to conduct himself in his 
own house.—rov iWiov vixov Kakde rpoictéuevov] Though idcoc is used at times 
in the N. T. instead of the simple possessive pronoun, it is here emphatic, 
in contrast with éxxAyoia Oeov, ver. 5.—oixoc here, as elsewhere, denotes the 
entire household, including slaves. It is above all important that he 
should act properly in regard to the children; hence the apostle adds: 
réxva éyovta év brotayh peta mdone ceuvdrntoc] [LX d.] From a comparison 
with the corresponding passage in Tit. 1. 6, it is clear that he is speaking 
here, not of the father’s disposition, but of that of the children (in oppo- 
sition to Hofmann). The éyovra év troraym corresponds in sense with 
1... avuréraxra in the other passage, and in construction with éyovra 
. . . py év Katnyopia aowriac. The bishop is to preside over his house in 
such a way that the children shall not be wanting in submissiveness. The 
words pera mdone ceuvérytoc are to be connected with what immediately 
precedes, and not with zpoiorduevov (Hofmann). If it be right to refer 
them to the fathers (Heydenrich, Matthies, van Oosterzee), éyew must be 
explained as equivalent either to tenere (Matthies: “holding the children 
in obedience’’) or to catéyew (van Oosterzee). That, however, is arbitrary; 
besides, the parallel passage in Tit. i. 6, where aowria is the opposite of 
ceuvérne, is against it. Leo, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, are right there- 
fore in referring the words to the children. The idea of ceuvéry¢ does not 
forbid this reference, if only we avoid thinking of little children; comp., 
by way of contrast, the conduct of the children of the high priest Eli, in 
the O. T. 

Ver. 5 in a parenthesis gives the reason why a bishop ought to know 
how to govern his house properly.—ei dé ti¢é tov idiov oikov mpoorHvat ovK 
olde] dé shows that the confirmatory clause is adversative; the conclusion 
is made a minori ad majus. Bengel: plus est regere ecclesiam, quam 
familiam.J—ré¢ éxkAnoiag Ocov éripeAjoerac] The contrast here made be- 
comes still more forcible when it is observed that in ver. 15 Paul calls the 


1Theodoret: 9 7a guixpa olkovomecy ovK eldws, THS SUVaTaL TOY KpELTTOVWY Kal Ociwy mLoTEVORVAL 
Ty emimedrccap, - 


CHAP. 111. 4—6. 121 


éxkAyoia the oixog Ocov.—éxipeAgoetac] The future here, as often with the 
Greeks, expresses the capability; see Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 377. The 
verb éxmedéouae has not only the more general meaning of “take care of 
something” (Luke x. 34, 35), but also more definitely, “ fill an office, be 
overseer over something,” in which sense it is used here.—For a right 
understanding of the connection of this verse with what precedes, it is to 
be observed that the first requisite for a successful superintendence is 
obedience (ézoray7) from the church towards its superintendent. It is the 
bishop’s duty so to conduct himself that the members of the church may 
be obedient to him, not as servants to a master, but as children to a father, 
that they may show him obedience in love. 

Ver. 6. Mj veddutov] depending on dei . . . elvac in ver. 2, is attached to 
the previous accusatives, ver. 5 being a parenthesis. Neéguto¢ is rightly 
explained by Chrysostom: ov tov vedrepov évtaifa Héyet, GAA Tov veEoKATH- 
antov; comp. 1 Cor. ili. 6,7. Heinrichs is wrong if he thinks that, on 
account of what follows, the explanation rejected by Chrysostom is really 
the right one; for the rapid promotion to the episcopate of one newly 
admitted into the church, might easily have consequences to be dreaded 
by the apostle—The reason why a “novice” (Luther) should not be 
bishop is given in the words that follow: wa yy rvdabeic¢ cig Kpiua éurréon 
tov diaBdAov. Trdwbeic: [IX e.] “lest he being beclouded with conceit (of foolish 
pride).” The verb (which occurs only here and in vi. 4 and 2 Tim. iii. 4) 
comes from ridoc, which in the figurative sense especially denotes darkness, 
as beclouding man’s mind so that he does not know himself, so that the 
consciousness of his own weakness is hidden from him; in 2 Tim. iii. 4 it 
is appropriately joined with pydév éxotduevoc (comp. Athenaeus, vi. 238d). 
Tvdwfeic describes the conduct of the veé@yto¢g which brings on him the 
kpiua tov dia3dA0v.—eic Kpiwa éuréon Tov dia3dAov] Nearly all expositors take 
6 614Bo0A0¢ here and in ver. 7 to be the devil. Some, again, explain it as 
“the libellous fellow.”! Against this latter view, however, there are three 
decisive arguments—(1) According to the constant usage of the N. T., the 
substantive 6 6:480/0¢ always denotes the devil (it is otherwise in the LXX., 
but only in Esth. vii. 4, viii. 1)? (2) The singular has the definite article, 
which seems to mark out one definite individual, for the collective use of 
the singular can always be inferred from the context (as in Matt. xii. 35; 
Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 18; Jas. ii. 6; this, indeed, is less the case in Jas. 
v. 6); besides, here the idea of “libeller” is too indefinite for the train of 
thought; hence Hofmann is forced to define it arbitrarily: ‘“ whoever 
makes it his business to speak evil of Christianity.” (8) If, in the ex- 
pression 7 tov dvaBdAov rayic, at 2 Tim. li. 26, tov diaBdAov cannot mean 
anything else than the devil, it is arbitrary to render it otherwise when 
used in the same expression at ver. 7.—«piva is not equivalent to “ charge, 
accusation ” (Matthies), but “the judgment,” especially “the judgment of 


1Mosheim, Wegscheider, Hofmann; Luther: ii. 26 and in Eph. vi. 11, even Hofmann takes 
“the slanderer.” it to be the devil; but, on the other hand, 
2Paul uses the word only here and in ver. both here and in Eph. iv. 17 he takes it to be 


7; 2 Tim. ii. 26; Eph. iv. 17, vi.11. In2 Tim. the human slanderer. 


122 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


condemnation.” —rov d:a3620v is mostly (even by Wiesinger and van Ooster- 
zee) taken to be the genitivus objecti (comp. especially Rev. xvii. 1), equiva- 
lent to “the judgment which is executed on the devil” (van Oosterzee), 
because «pivevv is not the devil’s business; Bengel: diabolus potest oppro- 
brium inferre (ver. 7), judicium inferre non potest, non enim judicat, sed 
judicatur.! But the notion that the devil is delivered to condemnation 
because of self-conceit, cannot be scripturally proved. For this reason, 
and also because rot daBd/ovu in ver.7 is manifestly the subjective genitive, 
it is preferable to take it in the same way here (so, too, Plitt).2. Of course 
the xpiva of the devil cannot mean a trial which the devil hoids, but the 
judgment which serves to give him foundation for accusing man with God 
(comp. the name for the devil, kaz#ywp, in Rey. xii. 10).8 

Ver. 7. Aci dé kai paprupiav Kadgy Eyer ard Tov éEwbev] Aci 5é (Which does not 
present something opposed to ver.6) adds a new requirement to those 
already given in vy. 2-6, a requirement needed for the sake of those who 
are not Christians. Thus det here becomes connected with the dei in ver. 
2.—naprvpia occurs in the Pauline Epistles only here and in Tit. i. 13.— 
axd tov elev] oi éwHev (for which Paul commonly uses oi é£w) are those 
outside the church ; az6 is equivalent not to “among,” but to “from;” the 
testimony comes from those who are not Christians. In the choice of a 
bishop, care is to be taken that he is a man who has led an irreproachable 
life even in the eyes of those who are not Christians. The reason is added 
just asin ver. 6: iva py eic¢ dveWiopov éuréon Kai rayida Tov diaBddov] dverdiopdv 
may be taken absolutely (Wiesinger, Pltt), or joined with rod 6:aZ. (van 
Oosterzee). The former view is supported by the fact that éuxéoy separates 
dve. from rayida; the latter, by the fact that the preposition is not repeated 
before rayida. The passage in vy. 14, 15, when compared with this, sup- 
ports the former view, which is further established as correct by the 
consideration that we cannot well suppose oved/few to be an act of the 
devil. Since dvecdioudc is not defined more precisely, it must be taken as 
quite general in meaning.—«ai rayida tov diaBdAov] the same expression in 
2 Tim. ii. 26; in 1-Tim. vi. 9.it stands without rod diaB., and there, too, it 
is joined with zeipacudc (elsewhere only in Rom. xi. 9, which follows Ps. 
Ixix. 23). It is a figurative name for the lying in wait of the devil, who is 
represented as a hunter. The idea of its association with dvedoué¢ is this, 
that the disgrace incurred by one who has not a good testimony from the 
non-Christians, is used by the devil as a snare, not only to tempt him, but 
also to seduce him into apostasy from the gospel.‘ 


1Jt is out of place to appeal to 2 Pet. ii.4 and 
Jude 6 (Wiesinger), since in these passages 
mention is made, not of the judgment which 
will bé passed on the devil, but of the judg- 
ment which will be passed on a number of 
wicked angels. 

2Had the apostle been thinking of the 
judgment which will be passed on the devil 


have expressed himself more clearly, with 


something like this: tva ph xpivntar adv To 
dtaBorw. 

3Hofmann asserts that it is irrational to 
speak of a judgment which the devil pro- 
nounces ; but we may ask, on the other 
hand, whether it is not irrational to speak of 
a devil without judgment. 

4 In explaining tov d:aBoAov Hofmann ex- 
plains éuréon (eis) tay. T- deaB. to mean, that 
the slanderer tries to ensnare such a one in 


CHAP. Ill. ?—9. tes 


Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-13, see Note X. page 135.] From this to ver. 13 we 
have instructions regarding the deacons. [X «.]—dcaxdvovg aoavTu¢ oEpvoug 
x.t.a.| The deacons, as at first instituted in the church at Jerusalem, were 
originally almoners of the poor (Acts vi. 1-6). They are mentioned again 
only in Phil. i. 1. In Rom. xvi. 1, Paul calls Phoebe a dudkovoc of the 
church at Cenchrea. There are some other passages which allude to the 
diaconate—Romi. xii. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 28 (avridgperc); 1 Pet. iv: 11. It is 
known that this office in the chureh was afterwards not confined to its 
original object, but there is nothing to indicate how far it was developed 
in the apostolic age. Many of the duties assigned to the deacons in later 
times, can only be arbitrarily connected with the office in the apostolic 
age. Only it is to be observed that both here and in Phil. i. 1, the deacons 
are named ajter the bishops.—écairoc] marks here, as in ii. 9, the transi- 
tion to ordinances in regard to another class of persons, indicating at the 
same time their similarity to those preceding. —oepvoic | The accusative 1s 
dependent on det elvar, which is to be supplied; regarding the idea con- 
tained in the word, see il. 2.—7 diddyove] the word diAoyos only here. In 
Prov. xi. 18, LX X. ; in Ecclus. v. 9, 14, vi. 1, xxvili. 18, we have the similar 
word: diyAwooos! (comp. also dipuxzoc in Jas. iv. 8); Theophylact: asa 
@povowrTes Kal aAara Aéyovrec, Kat GAda Tovroie Kal aAAa éxelvolc.—ly] OLV@» TOAAG 
mpooéyovtac] mpoaé yew here, as in iv. 18 and Heb. vii. 13: “be addicted to ; ¥ 


Tit. 11. 3: py olive ToAA@ SedovAwpévac.— pL] aio ypokepdeic | only here and in Tit. 
i. 7; comp. 1 Pet. v. 2: brtoxorrobyrec . . . pydé aicypoKepdac, GAA Tpofijuwc ; 
and Tit. ii. 11, where it is said of the heretics that they by unseemly doc- 
trine destroy houses aia xypov Képdove yapw. These passages show that we 
are not to think here of gain from “dishonorable dealing ” (Luther, 
Theodoret: 2 mpayyatev aia xpav kat Aiav atérov), but rather of using the 
spiritual office for a material advantage (comp. vi. 5). 

Ver. 9. “Eyovrac TO pevotipiov 776 riotewc év Kabapa cvverdjoer| The emphasis 
is not on éyortac, as if it meant “holding fast,” but on & Kabapa cvvecdyoet 
(Wiesinger).—ro pvorhprov 77/¢ rictewc] This collocation occurs nowhere else. 
Iliore is not the doctrine of faith (Heumann), but subjective faith (de 
Wette). Mvarfpiov ‘is the subject-matter of faith, i.e. the divine truth, 
which is a secret not only in so far as ‘t was hidden from the world until 
it was revealed at the appointed time (Rom. xvi. 25) and remains hidden 
to every man till the knowledge of it is wrought in him by the Spirit 
of God (1 Cor. ii. 7-10, 14), but also in so far as it is even to the believer 
imepBdAAovoa THE Yradewc (Wiesinger). The expression is synonymous 
with that in ver. 16: 70 T7¢ eva eBelac pvoTnpiov.— v kabapa ovvedfoe.]| Comp. 
i.5, 19. The clause is to be joined closely with éyovrac, and is to be under- 
stood neither specially of occupying the office, nor quite generally of the 
virtuous life, or “the moral disposition ” (Hofmann), but of purity and 
uprightness in regard to the mystery of the faith. It stands in contrast 
with the impurity of the heretics, who had their conscience stained by 
the mingling of truth with errors; comp. iv. 2. 


the sense of “ showing him as an evidence of selects such a man as its head” ('). 
the state of morality in an association which 1Theogn. v. 91: os uu yAwoor dix” Exel. 


124 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Ver. 10. Kai obror d& doxiyualécbwoav mpatov| The particles cat . . . dé mean 
and also, xai being purely copulative ; dé, however, opposing and empha- 
sizing! something new. Since this new thing, which is necessarily em- 
phatic, always stands between kai and 6é, otto, as van Oosterzee has rightly 
seen, must be opposed to those before named, 7.e. to the presbhyters; it is 
to be explained : “and these too, i.e. not only the presbyters, but also the 
deacons, are first to be proved.” It is wrong, therefore, to make doxiat- 
éofwoav emphatic, and to explain otro. without reference to those before 
named (“and these are further to be proved’), as was done in the former 
editions of this commentary.?, Had he wished to say that, the apostle 
could not but have written kai doxiwalécbwoar 62 oitor; comp. John viii. 16. 
It is true that nothing has been said hitherto about an examination in 
regard to the office of presbyter; but, of course, such an examination 
must have preceded the election. The examination for the office of 
deacon would certainly refer to the life and stedfastness in the faith. He 
does not say who was to undertake the examination, but it is natural to 
suppose that it was to be undertaken by those who elected. At the first 
institution of the diaconate the election was made by the church, the instal- 
lation to the office by the apostles. It is not known how it was managed 
later in the apostolic age. Heydenreich makes the examination too for- 
mal when he says: “ They are to be examined first by Timothy, with the 
aid of the presbytery ; the votes of the members of the church are to be 
taken concerning his worthiness,” etc. On the other hand, the force of 
doxuatéctoocay must not be weakened by such explanations as: “ Paul 
wishes only those to be made_diaxovon regarding whom a definite opinion 
had already been formed in the church” (so in the second edition of this 
commentary); or: “itis the moral testing which naturally took place 
when they lived for some time under the eyes of the church and its 
leader;” or: “it is in substance the same thing as py vedpuTov, used 
regarding the choice of presbyters ” (Hofmann).—It is quite wrong, with 
Luther (“and these are first to be tried”’) and others, to understand the 
words as if they meant that candidates were first to be tried in the affairs 
‘of the diaconate.—eira dvaxoveitwoav, avéyKaAnroe bvtec] The participle ex- 
presses the condition under which they are to be admitted to the office 
of deacon. Avaxoveiv, as applied definitely to the office of deacon, oecurs 
only here, at ver. 14, and in 1 Pet. iv. 11. 

Ver. 11. Twvaikag doattw¢ ceuvac x.t.2.] [X b.] No further hint is given 
as to what women he is here speaking of; only it is to be observed that 
these instructions regarding them are inserted amongst the rules for the 
diaconate, since ver. 12 continues to speak of the latter. They must 
therefore, at all events, be regarded as women who stand in close relation 
to the. deacons—either the wives of the deacons or the deaconesses. 
Mack’s supposition, that they are the wives of the deacons and of the 
bishops, is quite arbitrary. The second view is found as early as in Chrys- 


1Comp. Meyer on John yi. 51; Hartung, * Wiesinger, too, seems ft» ta'se it in this 
Lehre von den Partik. d. gr. Spr. I. pp. 181 ff; way: “These, however, alsu are first to be 
Buttmann, p. 312 [E. T. 364]. proved, then they may serve.” 


CHAP. ur. 10-13. 125 
ostom (yvvaikac diaxdvove 70°), Theophylact, Oecumenius, Grotius, and 
others; de Wette, Wiesinger, and Hofmann also think it correct. The 
principal grounds for it are—(1) the word écairwe, which indicates that the 
apostle here passes (see ver. 8) to a new class of ecclesiastical persons 
(Wiesinger); and (2) the fact that the instructions given in this whole 
section are rather directions for election than exhortations to the persons 
named, On the other hand, the omission of aitov (de Wette, Wiesinger) 
and the expression morac¢ év raow, usually understood, as de Wette 
wrongly thinks, of conjugal fidelity, are of no weight—Against this view, 
however, there are two circumstances which should be considered, viz., that 
the instruction regarding the deaconesses is inserted among those given to 
the deacons, and also that the apostle calls them quite generally yuvaies, 
instead of using the definite ai diaxovoc (comp. Rom. xvi. 1). This makes 
it probable that by the yevaixec we should understand the deacons’ wives 
(so, too, Plitt). The reason of the special exhortation would then be, not, 
as Heydenreich says, that even the domestic life of the deacons should 
be considered, but that the office of the deacons, consisting in the care of 
the poor and the sick, was of a kind in which their wives had to lend a 
helping hand. Hence we can explain why the wives of the bishops are 
not specially mentioned.’—p7 diaBddove] duaBoroc, as an adjective : “slan- 
derous,” occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, here and at 2 Tim. ii oR 
Tit. ii. 3.—vngariove] is not equivalent to p77 vive T6AAw Tpocexovoac, Ver. ore 
it is to be taken in the same sense as in ver. 2 (in opposition to Wiesinger, 
van Oosterzee).—morac év raow] “ faithful in all things ;” év raow forbids 
us to limit the command of fidelity to any one sphere; it is not merely 
faithfulness at home nor in the duties of the church that is meant. 

Ver. 12. The apostle returns to the deacons, and gives regarding their 
domestic life the same instructions as he gave in vv. 2-4 in regard to the 
bishops. 

Ver. 13. To these instructions he adds in this verse a reason: oi yap 
kadoc duakovpcavrec (dcaxovety is here and in ver. 10 used in the official sense) 
BaOudv gavtoic Kaddy TEprrovovyTat.” The word abudc, [X c.] which occurs 
only here, denotes, like gradus, in the figurative sense, a degree of honor. 
As to what is to be understood by this, expositors are not agreed; but we 
may reject at once all explanations in which a comparative is put in place 
of the positive xa4év. This objection applies to the view that Bafude denotes 
here the higher ecclesiastical office, the office of bishop,? which view, 
moreover, presupposes a regulation of rank altogether foreign to the 


1Van Oosterzee’s view is arbitrary, that 
those deacons’ wives are meant who at the 
same time held the office of deaconess. 

2Hofmann thinks that ver. 13 is connected 
only with ver. 12; because a man might fill 
the office of deacon well, though he lacked 
the qualities named in vv. 8-10, but not if 
his house were badly managed. But that 
is not the ease. Those qualities, not less 
than the one given in ver. 12, are the neces- 


sary conditions for filling the office of deacon 
well. 

3Jerome: “bonum hie pro gradu majori 
posuit; sunt enim minores [diaconi] ;” Ben- 
gel: “gradum ab humilitate diaconiae ad 
majora munera, in ecclesia. Qui in minore 
gradu fidelis est, ad majora promovetur ;” so, 
too, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, 
Heumann, Heydenreich, Baur, Plitt, and 
others. 


126 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 

apostolic age. The same objection applies to the view that Sabuic Karéc is 
a higher stage of the life of faith, 7.e. an increase in Christian perfection. 
The expositors who hold by the positive «addéc, interpret the idea, some of 
the future, others of the present life. The former understand by it “a 
higher stage of blessedness ;”’? the datter explain the expression as applying 
to “respect in the church.” *—Heinrich, de Wette, and Wiesinger agree 
with the view of the former, only modifying it to mean nota stage of 
holiness, but “the expectancy of it.” This modification is, however, 
unwarrantable, since the idea of “expectancy or claim” is imported. 
Safuéc Means a stage; it cannot at the same time mean the claim toa 
stage; and if Babué¢ must mean the claim to something, then there is 
nothing to indicate what the claim refers to.—The decision between the 
two interpretations depends on the explanation of the words that follow: 
Kal roAAqv Tappyciay év mioter TH Ev Xptot@ "Incotv] wappyoia means, in the 
first place, candor in speech; then more generally, bold courage in action, 
synonymous with ddea (Hesychius); and lastly, firm confidence in some- 
thing; thus in reference to men, 2 Cor. vii. 4 (70224 jor rappycia xpoc bac), 
or to God, viz. the confidence which the Christian in faith has in the saving 
grace of God ; so in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the First Epistle of 
John If Bafudc is to be referred to future blessedness, then zappyoia here, 
as in 1 John ii. 21, Heb. iv. 16, is confidence towards God. But in 1 John 
iil. 21 we have zpoc¢ tov Oeév along with xappyoia, and in Heb. iv. 16 pera 
mappnoiac is added to define more precisely the clause: zpocepyaueba TH 
Afpdvw tHe xapito¢; as to the parallel passage in vi. 19, to which de Wette 
likewise appeals, the reference to the future life is distinctly expressed by 
the words eic 75 wéAAov. Of all this there is nothing here; there is nothing, 
either here or with xaAdv Bafuédy, to direct us to the future life, nothing to 
indicate that with zappycia we should supply xpd¢ tov Oedv, or the like. 
Hence it is more natural to refer these ideas to the sphere in which 
the diaxoveiv takes place, and to understand by BaAusc, respect in the 
church.;* by rappyoia, confidence in their official labors. These two things 
stand in closest relation. to one another, since only he can possess right 
confidence in his office who is open to no just reproach, who is honored 
for conducting himself well in the matters with which his office is 
concerned. Wiesinger, against this view, maintains that “the aorist 
(Staxovgoavtec) makes the Babusv éavt. Kara. mepix. appear to be the final 
result of the official labor;”® but if that were the case, the present 
zepixovovvrat Should not have been used, but the perfect ; for the acquisi- 
tion does not take place after the official labor, but during it—Certainly 


the spiritual life, and also of eternal blessed- 


’ 


1S0 Theodoret (rdv tiptov TodTov Babwov ev 


To méAAovTe AnWovTat Biw), Flatt, and others. 
2So Galvin, Planck, Wegscheider, Leo, Mat- 
thies, and others. . 

3 Regarding Luther’s translation of rappyaia 
by “joyfulness,” see my Comment. on the 
Epistles of John, 30 ed., on 1 John iy. 17. 

4Van Oosterzee’s opinion is manifestly 
wrong, that Ba@uds is-“a beautiful stage of 


ness.’ 
5The other grounds apply only to the ex- 
position of Matthies, who understands by 
“the influential post;” by 
mappyoia, “the free play of thought and 
speech, a wide open field of spiritual activity.” 
In this he certainly exceeds the meaning 
which may be assigned to these words. 


BaOuos Kadds 


CHAP. II. 14, 15. 127 
the aorist is somewhat strange; but it may mean that the Safyoc k.7.A. is 
always the result of good service.—The verb xepiroeiofa, in the N. T. 
only here and in Acts xx. 28, has even in classical writers the meaning 
“oain for oneself.” The dative éavroi¢g is added to show clearly that he is 
speaking of the gain to the deacons themselves, and not to the congrega- 
tion—év riorer tH év XpioTH “Tjoov] is not to be joined with Babuéy and 
xappyoiav (van Oosterzee), but only with rappyciav.” Itis not the sphere 
in which, nor the object in regard to which, there is wappycia (Heumann : 
“the boldness to teach the Christian faith even in public ;” Wegscheider : 
“free activity for Christianity, or a greater sphere for the spread of Chris- 
tianity ”); but it denotes the wappyoia as Christian, as rooted in Ghristian 
faith. The construction of xiore with év following it, is found also in 2 
Tim. iii. 15; Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4 (only that in these passages 
there is no article before év, while there is one before rior; on the other 
hand, comp. Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18). This construction may be explained 
to mean that Christ is the object of faith already apprehended; the 
believer not only has Christ before him, but he tives in communion 
with Him. 

Vv. 14, 15. [On Vv. 14-16, see Note XI., pages 135-137.] The apostle has 
come here to a resting-point, since he has brought to an end his instructions 
regarding some of the chief points to be noticed in the affairs of the 
church; but, before passing to any new matter, he casts a glance back on 
the instructions he has given, and tells what was the occasion of his giving 
them.—rairé co. ypadw] Bengel’s explanation: “raiza, @.e. totam episto- 
lam,” in which Hofmann agrees, is so far right, that raira refers rather 
to the instructions that precede (from ii. 1 onward).—éA7ifov <Afet Tpoc GE 
rayiov] é2xifwv does not give the real (“ hoping,” Matthies), but the adver- 
sative ground (Leo: Part. éArifev per xaivep seu similem particulam esse 
resolvendum, nexus orationis docet; so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, 
Plitt). The real ground is given by the following wa. Hofmann asserts, 
but does not prove, that this view does not accord with the following é. 
Hofmann finds that a@x/Zov only expresses an accompaniment of the act 
of writing, and that it was added “lest Timothy should infer from the 
sending of an epistle that the apostle meant to leave him for some time 
in Ephesus;” but in this he imports a motive of which the context 
furnishes no hint.—réyiov [XI a.] (comp. on this form, Winer, p. 67 [E. 
T. p. 69]; Buttmann, p. 24 [E. T. 27]) is here taken by most expositors as 
a pure positive “soon ;” the comparative sense (according to Winer, pp. 


1Hofmann’s explanation of faOuds and 
mappyoia agrees in substance with that given 
here. He is wrong, however, in asserting 
that the deacons do not acquire both during, 
but only after their tenure of office. If the 
latter were the case, the means by which it 
takes place would not be given. 

2 Hofmann, indeea, nolds even this connec- 
tion of ideas to be unsuitable ; but we do not 
see why the mappyova may not be marked as 


Christian, as rooted in faith in Christ. To 
connect it with what follows, would be to 
suppose that the apostle lays emphasis on a 
point, which to Timothy would be self-evident. 

3Hofmann’s assertion, that the reference 
of radra to what precedes is forbidden by the 
present ypadw (for which we should have had 
éypada), is contradicted by 1 Cor. iv. 14, xiv. 
97: 2 Cor. xiii. 10; Gal. i. 20; also by 1 John 
ii- 1. 


128 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 

227 f. [E. T. p. 243]), though in the background, has not wholly disap- 
peared: “sooner” (not “than the arrival of this letter,” or “than thou 
wilt have need of these instructions,’ Winer) “than is or was to be 
expected.’’—In spite of this hope, the apostle’s arrival might possibly be 
longer delayed, and this possibility had induced him to impart his instruc- 
tions by writing, lest Timothy should be without them.—éav dé Bpadive 
(the verb only here and at 2 Pet. ii. 9), wa eldje wc dei év oixw Oeod ava- 
orpéoecbar] rac dei avaotpégecba refers not so much to the Christian life in 
general, as to behavior in church life, viz. in divine service and in church 
arrangements. This limitation is clearly indicated by the connection 
with what precedes, the raira referring us back (in opposition to Hof- 
mann). Its subject is either Timothy, in which case oé is to be supplied 
(Luther: “how thou shouldst walk; ” so, too, Wiesinger), or no definite 
subject should be supplied: “how one should walk.’’? Both explanations 
are possible in language and in fact; but the second may be preferred, 
because Paul in the preceding part (to which raira refers) did not say 
what Timothy was to*do, but what arrangements were to prevail in the 
church; Hofmann thinks differently, as he understands rtatvra of the 
whole epistle. The expression oixog Ocov denotes properly the temple at 
Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 13), then also the O. T. people as the church in 
which God had His dwelling (Heb. iii. 2,5); in Christian usage it is the 
N. T. people in whom the dwelling of God has been fully realized; Heb. 
i. 6 (Heb. x. 21); 1 Pet. iv. 17; synonymous with it are the expressions : 
katoukntipiov Oeov, Eph. ii. 22; vade Oeov, 1 Cor. ili. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16.—To 
elucidate the symbolic expression, Paul adds : frie got éxKAnoia Ocod Cavroc | 
The pronoun jrwc (= “se@ing it”) makes the explanatory sentence 
emphatic, by indicating why there should be such behavior in the house 
of God as Paul had prescribed (which Hofmann denies); and the reason 
is not simply that it is an éxxAgoia, 7. e. a church, and as such has necessa- 
rily certain definite ordinances, but still more definitely because it is a 
church of God, of the living God, who as such esteems highly His ordi- 
nances in. His church.—There follow in simple apposition the words: 
otbAoc Kai Edpainua tie aAnbeiac] [XI b.] Fhese words are in apposition to 
éxxAnoia O. C., and as such are rightly explained by the older? and most of 
the recent commentators.’ Some Protestant commentators, however, in- 


1The impersonal de? is usually joined with 
the accusative and infinitive, the infinitive 


29: mevOapxetv Sec ed; Xv. 5: Set wepiremvew 
avrovs; Tit. i. 11: ovs det émiotouegew; the dec 


- denoting the thing, the accusative the person 
who must do the action expressed by the 
' yerb. More frequently thé person is not 
named, but is easily supplied from the con- 
text. as e.g. in Matt. xxiii. 23, where vpas, in 
Luke xii. 12, where again tuas, and in Luke 
Xv. 32, where cé is to be supplied. Hofmann 
is therefore wrong in asserting that there is 
no linguistie justification for supplying oé 
here, where eidyjs precedes. Sometimes, 
‘however, Set refers to no particular person; 
so John iv. 20: omov mpooxuvety dec; Acts vy. 


in that case corresponds to the English “ one 
must.” It is arbitrary, with Hofmann, to 
supply twa here, and understand by it one 
who “has to govern a house of God.” 

*Theodore of M. rightly says: éxxAnotas ov 
TovS olKouS Aéyet TOUS EVKTNPLOUS KaTa THY THY 
ToAA@v cuvyPecav, GAAa TOY TLOT@Y TOV OVA- 
Aoyov, b0ev Kat oTVAov avTyv Kai éSpawpa T. 
adv. éxddecev, ws av ev avT? THS aAnOeias Thy 
avoTacw éxovons. 

3 Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Mack, 
Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann; 


CHAP. Ur. 16. 129 


fluenced by their polemic against the Catholic idea of the church, have 
taken these words as the beginning of the following sentence.’ The 
reasons against this construction are—(1) That the new thought would be 
taken up in a very abrupt and sudden manner, while by connecting it 
with the previous words, the train of thought is suitable and natural ; (2) 
That “grammatically the third defining term, simply adjectival, éyoA. 
yéya, cannot well be placed in co-ordination with two predicates like 
otidoc and édpaiwua” (Wiesinger, following Schleiermacher); and (3) That, 
whereas 1d tic eboeBetac wrot#piov is nothing else than the a/#Geca, this con- 
struction would make the former designate the latter as oriAog Kai édp., 
which would clearly be unsuitable. There is manifestly nothing to be 
said for the opinion of some commentators,’ that by or. x. édp. we are to 
understand Timothy .’—oriAoc in the figurative sense occurs only here and 
at Gal. ii. 9; Rev. iii. 12. The oixoc Ocov is called orbdoc tHe aAnbeiac, inas- 
much as the pillar supports and bears the roof resting on it (see Meyer on 
Gal. ii. 9), but not “inasmuch as it serves to elevate something and make 
it manifest” (Hofmann). The same idea is expressed by the second word: 
édpaiwua, the base, foundation (similarly #eyéAcoc, 2 Tim. ii. 19), a word which 
is only used here in the N. T. The thought that the divine truth is supported 
and borne by the church, has nothing startling when we remember that 
the church, as the olxoc¢ cov, has the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of 
truth; the Spirit of truth, therefore, is its indwelling, all-penetrating prin- 
ciple of life, by which it stands in closest communion with its head.* But 
if the church is set up to be the preserver of divine truth, it is all the 
more important that all should be well-ordered in it. These words stand, 
therefore, in close connection with what precedes; but, at the same time, 
they make the transition to what follows, where the apostle in a few brief 
characteristics gives the nature of the truth, that he may from this point 
return to his polemic against the heretics, and continue it further. 

Ver. 16. Kai éuoroyouuévwe péya éoti 7d tHe evoeBeiac wrotHptov] Kai connects 
what follows with the preceding words, and in such a way as to empha- 
size the following predicate.—éuoroyounévwe] which only occurs here, 
means neither “manifestly ’’ (Luther), nor “according to the song of 
praise” (Mack), nor even “correspondingly ” (Hofmann ®); but: “as as 


now, too, by van Oosterzee, 3d ed. ‘Van Oos- 
terzee is, however, inclined to conjecture 
that “there is here a corruption of the text 

which cannot now be restored with certainty.” 
' 1First, in the edition of the N. T. at Basel, 
1540, 1545; later, Bengel, Mosheim, Heyden- 
reich, Flatt; formerly also van Oosterzee. 

2Gregory of Nyssa (de Vita Mosis): ov wovov 
Tlétpos wai “laxwBos kai Iwavyvys otvAoe THs 
axxAnoias ciot ... 0 Oelos amdaTodos Kal Tov 
Tipd@cov otvAov Kaddv éTEeKTHVATO, ToLjoas 
avrov, Kabws dyoti TH dia dwvy, oTvAOV Kal 
éSpaiwua THs EKKAnglas 

3Though Chrysostom construes rightly, he 
. yet inverts the meaning of the sentence: ovx 
@s éxeivos 0 "lovdatkds olxos 8., ToUTO yap EaTL 


9 


To cuvéxov Thy TicTW Kal TO KHpYyHa’ y yap 
GAjberd eater THS ExkKAnGias Kal oTVAOS Kat 
edpaiwma. 

4Wiesinger rightly calls attention to the 
distinction which should be made between 
“the truth as it is in itself, and the truth as 
it is acknowledged in the world,” and then 
says: “in the former respect it needs no 
support, but bears itself; in the latter, it 
needs the church as its support, as its bearer 
and preserver.” If the Catholic Church has 
drawn wrong conclusions from the apostle’s 
words, it has itself to blame, and not the 
apostle. 

5 Hofmann, without reason, takes objection 
to the sense given to the apostle’s remark, 


130 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


acknowledged” comp. 4 Mace. vi. 31, vii. 16, xvi. 1; Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 
2, ii. 9. 6).—péya] comp. Eph. v. 32 (kai 7d puorhpiov rovTo péya Eoriv), has the 
sense of “important, significant.”—The subject of the sentence: 7d ric 
evoeBeiag pvorhpiov, is a paraphrase of the 4/7#ea in the preceding verse. It 
is so called by the apostle, because, as the substance of the Christian fear 
of God, or piety, it is hidden from the world: the sense is the same, there- 
fore, as that of rd pvothpiov tij¢ wiorewe in ver. 9. It is wrong to translate it, 
as Luther does: “the blessed secret,” or to explain it: “the doctrine 
which leads to godliness.” Wiesinger is incorrect in explaining it: “a 
secret accessible only to godliness ;” and Hofmann in saying: “the truth 
which is of such a nature as to produce godliness where it finds accept- 
ance.”—The purport—. e. the christological purport—is now given in the 
next clauses, Paul laying stress on it on account of the polemical ten- 
dency of the epistle against the heretics (chap. iv.), whose theology and 
Christology were in contradiction with the gospel.—As to the construction 
of these clauses, there would be no difficulty with the reading Gedc. 
[XI ¢, d.] If6 be read, it must relate to pvor#pir, which also might be the 
construction with é¢. According to the Vulgate (sacramentum quod 
manifestatum est), the latter is the construction adopted by the Latin 
Fathers who understood Christ to be the pvorgpiov,'—an interpretation 
quite unjustifiable and unsuitable to the general train of thought. Several 
expositors (Mangold, Hofmann, and others) assume the first clause: 
dc . . . capxi, to be the subject, and the other five clauses to form the 
predicate; but “on account of the parallelism, that is not advisable” 
(Winer, p. 547 [E. T: p. 588]). It is much more natural from their simi- 
lar form to regard all six clauses as co-ordinate. Then the subject to 
which é¢ relates isnot named ; but, according to the purport of the various 
clauses, it can be none other than Christ. [XI e.] This curious omission 
may be thus accounted for; the sentence has been taken from a formula 
of confession, or better, from an old Christian hymn, as its metrical and 
euphonious character seems to indicate. This view is also adopted by 
Heydenreich, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt—The 
opinion of Matthies is untenable, that the apostle does not name Christ 
expressly, in order to maintain the character of rd pvorAprov (in the sense: 
Acknowledged great, etc., . . . he who is revealed, etc.), and that this 
absolute use of the relative pronoun is found elsewhere in the N. T. In 
the passages quoted by him, Rom. ii. 23, 1 Cor. vil. 37, John i. 46, iii. 34, 
1 John i. 8, the pronoun has not the absolute meaning alleged by him. 
The first clause runs: é¢avepd6n év capxi] éoavepoOy is often used of Christ’s 
appearance on earth, of His becoming man, 1 John i. 2, ili. 5; it presup- 


that believers acknowledged the secret of 
godliness to be great. But if this thought is 
meaningless here, not less is the one he sub- 
stitutes: “to the greatness of the house of 
God corresponds the greatness of the mystery 
of piety.” 

1Kven Buttmann is of this opinion, as he 


quotes this passage (uvorypior, ds epavepwOn) 
under the rule (p. 242) [E. T. p. 282], that the 
relative agrees with the natural gender of 
the preceding substantive. 

.2Comp. Rambach’s Anthoiogie christl. Ge- 
sdinge aus allen Jahrh. d. Kirche, I. 33, and 
Winer, p. 594 [E. T. p. 639 f.]. 


CHAP. I. 16. 131 
poses a previous concealment,’ and consequently the pre-existence of 
Christ as the eternal Logos.—'Ey capxi] (comp. 1 John iv. 2: éAnAvbae év 
capxi; Rom. vill. 38: év duotiuarte capKd¢ auapriac) denotes the human nature 
in which Christ appeared; John i. 14: 6 A6yo¢ odpé éyévero.—With this first 
clause the second stands in contrast: édccadOy év rvebuatc] Means (as in 
Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 35): to be shown to be such a one as He is in 
nature; here, therefore, the sense is: He was shown in His divine glory 
(as the Logos or eternal Son of God), which was veiled by the odpé. “Ev 
mvevpate is contrasted with év capxi, the latter denoting the earthly, human 
manner of His appearing, the former the inner principle which formed 
the basis of His life. Though év with zvebnate has not entirely lost its 
proper meaning, yet it shades off into the idea of the means used, in so 
far as the spirit revealed in Him was the means of showing His true 
nature.’ It would be wrong to separate here the tvevua from His person, 
and to understand by it the spirit proceeding from Him and imparted to 
His own, it is rather the living spiritual principle dwelling in Him and 
working out from Him (so, too, Plitt)—Chrysostom diverges from this 
exposition, and explains éd:xac667 by : déAov ot éxoinoev, dxep 6 rpoohrye Aéyet. 
6¢ duapriay ovk éroince ; and Bengel takes the meaning of the expression to be 
that Christ bore the sins of the world (peccata peccatorum tulit . . . et 
justitiam aeternam sibi suisque asseruit); but both views import ideas 
which are here out of place. The expression év rvebware has also found 
very varying interpretations. Instead of rveiua being taken in its real 
sense, particular elements of it in the life of Christ, or particular modes 
of revealing the zveiua, have been fixed upon, or zveiva has been taken 
simply of the divine nature of Christ.3—éo67 ayyéAocc] The right meaning 
of this third clause also can only be got from a faithful consideration of 
the words. The word 6¢67 is in the N. T. frequently joined with the dative, 
Matt. xvii. 3; Luke i. 11; Acts vii. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 5-8; Heb. ix. 28, ete. In 
all these passages it is not the simple “was seen,” but “was revealed ” or 
“appeared ;” it always presupposes the activity of the thing seen.—From 
the analogy of these passages, we must think here of Christ going to those 
to whom He became visible, so that all explanations which take 496 
merely as “was seen” are to be rejected.—In the N. T. dyyedou is especially 
applied to angels ; in itself the word may also denote human messengers 
(comp. Jas. iil. 25). To take it here in this latter sense (which Hofmann 


1Hence the same word is used also of the 
- resurrection and second coming of Christ. 

2Baur is wrong in explaining év mvevmate 
“as spirit.” This cannot be justified by exe- 
gesis, and hence Baur contents himself with 
the mere assertion that it is so. 

8’ The older expositors take mvevua to denote 
particularly Christ’s miracles (Theodoret: 
amede(xOn Sa Tov Oavuatwy Kai anedhavOn, ore 
@eds adnOns Kai @eod vids). Others apply it 
to the Spirit imparted to Him in baptism; 
others, to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pen- 
’ tecost; others, to Christ’s resurrection as the 


most glorious work of the Spirit (so Heyden- 
reich in particular). Akin to this view is 
that of Hofmann, who says that rvedua is 
“that which quickens, makes alive,” and 
deduces from this “that spirit changed the 
existence of Christ in the flesh... into 
something that had its nature from the 
Spirit,” and explalns édix. év av. as relating 
to the justification He received through His 
resurrection. All these explanations fall to 
the ground when it is observed that the con- 
text contains no reference to any such special 
fact. Glassius explains it thus: Justus de 


132 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


does), as denoting the apostles to whom Christ appeared after His resur- 
rection, is impossible, because nothing, not even the article, is used here 
to point to them in particular. If, then, dyyeAo can only mean angels, it 
is most natural to take ogfy ayyéAoc of the ascension, by which Christ—as 
the Glorified One—was made manifest to angels (so, too, Plitt). Still there 
is nothing here to lay stress on the ascension (as is done in the sixth 
clause); the pointis, that He who was justified év rveiuare presented Him- 
self to the angels in His glory.—Baur, indeed, in gnostic fashion interprets 
the passage of Christ as passing through the various series of aeons, but it 
is clear that the words neither demand nor even justify such a view. No less 
arbitrary is de Wette’s opinion, that probably the a¢@jva ayyéAore relates to 
a supernatural scene differing from the ascension, and forming the anti- 
thesis to the descent into hell=-The very form of the expression shows 
that we are not to think of appearances of angels at various moments in 
the earthly life of Christ, as some expositors suppose. More noteworthy 
is an explanation given by Chrysostom and approved by some later 
expositors, especially by Matthies and Wiesinger.!. Matthies appeals to 
passages which he thinks are elucidated by the words, passages where 
Christ is said to have been manifested as .. . head to all things in heaven 
and on earth, Eph. i. 20 ff, iii. 10, iv. 8 ff.; Col. i. 15 ff., ii. 10, 15; Heb. 1.6 
ff. But, though Christ’s lordship over all is spoken of in such passages, 
it is not said that Christ was made manifest to the angels only by means 
of His incarnation. The only passage which might be quoted here is 
Eph. iii. 10, which, however, rather declares that to the angels the eternal 
decree of the divine loye or of God’s wisdom was to be made known éa 
tHe ExxAnoiac. But such cannot possibly be the meaning of o¢67 ayyédote. 
Wiesinger simply explains it: “the angels saw the capxwévta on earth;”’ 
but obviously the sentence is meant to express something which befell not 
men, but angels.—éxnpbyIn év EIvecwr] for éExnpiyIn, comp. Phil. i. 15; and 
for év é3veow, Matt. xxvili. 19. There is no good reason for taking é0v7 
here as relating not to the nations in general, but, as Hofmann thinks, to 
the heathen exclusive of the Jews.2—émorebdn év Kéouw] eroteb dy is not, 
with some expositors, to be explained by éducaré07: “He has been testi- 
fied” (viz. by the miracles of the apostles), or by “ fidem sibi fecit” (“he 
gained belief for Himself”); it is to be taken in its proper meaning. The 
word xécuoc has the same general meaning as the preceding v7; van 
Oosterzee is wrong in thinking that it ought to be taken here in an eth- 
ical sense.—‘ Jesus is personally the subject-matter of preaching and of 
faith ” (Hofmann).—averjody év d6=y] Mark xvi. 19; Acts i. 11 (Acts x. 16), 
where the same verb joined with eic obpardy is used of Christ’s ascension. 
This supports the opinion of most expositors, that the same fact is men- 


elaratus est et filius Dei comprobatus in 
Spiritu i. e. per deitatem suam, cujus vi 
miracula fecit. 

1 Chrysostom says: 67 ayyéAots* WoTeE Kai 
a@yyedo. we0” nuav eldov tov vidv Tov Meow, mpo- 
Tepov ovx opwvtes. Theodoret’s expression is 


still more pointed: thy yap adpatov tis 
Georntos iat ovde Exetvor EWpwy, cGapKwhevTa 
b€ eOeaaavTo. 

2We cannot, in any case, see how “the sen- 
tence is emptied of its meaning” by regard 
ing Israel as included in the idea of €6vn. 


NOTES, 133 
tioned here.—év dé&y] may be taken as an adverbial adjunct equivalent to 
évddsuce (similarly 2 Cor. 11. 8; Col. i. 4); but in that case the expression 
of this sixth clause would be quite out of keeping with the others. Wahl 
takes the expression per attractionem pro: daveA. sic ddfav kai éoriv év O6En, 
which is the only right exposition.!. The apostle did not write ei¢ dééav, 
but év dé&y, to show that Christ not only entered into glory, but abides for 
ever in it (so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Still we cannot go so far as 
Matthies, who says that the result rather than the act of the transition is 
here mentioned; the expression with forcible brevity includes both points. 
De Wette’s assertion, too, is quite arbitrary, that Paul is speaking here 
not of the historical ascension, but of a heavenly occurrence.—In what 
relation now do these six clauses stand towards each other ?—We cannot 
help seeing that there is a definite order in their succession. It is beyond 
doubt chronological, since the second clause does not relate to the out- 
pouring of the Holy Spirit, and the last points more to Christ’s life in 
glory than to the historical ascension. But, at the same time, we can 
recognize a close relation between the clauses. Matthies, de Wette, 
Wiesinger, and Hofmann have adopted three groups, each containing two 
clauses; but, though ayyéAoue and éveow are contrasted, still this arrange- 
ment would separate between the fourth and fifth clauses, whose connec- 
tion Theodoret rightly points out: ov« éxnpiyin pdvov, aAAd Kai érioteb dy. 
Besides, in order to make the correspondence complete, éxypiydy év 
é3veow should have come before o¢37 ayyéAoe. It is more correct, there 
fore, to divide the whole into two parts, each with three clauses, the two 
first in each case referring to what took place on earth, the third to what 
took place in heaven (so, too, Plitt?). 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
Dee Vivi 17: 


(a) W. and H. connect the words tvord¢ 6 Adyo¢ with the closing words of the 
preceding chapter. The great majority of comm., as well as Tisch., Treg., Lachm., 
connect them with what follows. The latter connection seems more probable, 
because it makes the transition to chap. iii. less abrupt, and because the phrase is 
better adapted to the following than the preceding statement.—(b) The identity 
of the office of éxicxoroc and mpeoBiTepoc, at the date of these epistles, is now so 
generally admitted by the ablest and most candid scholars, that further discussion 
of the question is hardly necessary. The absence of the word mtpeoPitepoc from 
the earlier Pauline Epistles, to which Huther calls attention, is noticeable, but is, 
doubtless, to be accounted for by the fact that those epistles were occupied with 
subjects quite remote from the constitution and offices of the church, and espe- 


1Strange to say, Hofmann disputes this, on 
the ground that Jesus “ was not received into 
glory, but into the celestial sphere.” He 
appeals for this to Heb. i. 3, which is utterly 
from the point. 

2 Baur maintains that in these six clauses 
every two form a contrast, the one being 


more gnostic, the other more anti-gnostic. 
But in that case the author of the epistle 
would, in the second part, have very strangely 
given up the order observable in the first. 
Besides, of all the clauses, the third has by 
far the most resemblance to Gnosticism. 


134 . THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


cially by the fact that that constitution was in the earlier apostolic times of the 
simplest sort, and the official character of the leaders had little of the prom- 
inence which was subsequently given to it. In the only instance in which Paul 
speaks of éxicxoroz, in his epistles which were written before the three to Timo- 
thy and Titus, (Phil. i. 1), he evidently presents them as secondary to the church. 
The development of church organization which is indicated even in these three 
epistles is seen, so soon as the matter is carefully examined, to be very moderate. 
There are only two officers mentioned—presbyters and deacons, who are, also, 
alluded to as early as Acts vi. and xi.—(c) that the words pag yuvacxog avdpa do 
not have reference to contemporaneous polygamy, is evident from the reasons 
indicated by Huther, especially from the fact that the corresponding phrase in v. 
9, évd¢ avdpdc yuv#, cannot be interpreted in this way. They must either be un- 
derstood as opposed to a second marriage after the death of the first wife—succes- 
sive polygamy, as it is sometimes called—or to an immoral life in the way of 
concubinage. The former of these views is held, in addition to the writers men- 
tioned in Huther’s note, by Ell, Alf., Holtzm., Bib. Com. [the writer in this 
com., however, includes marriages after divorce], and others. Plumptre (so Conyb., 
Bloomf. 9th ed.) favors the reference to a second marriage after divorce, but 
this is justly objected to on the ground that there is no distinct mention of divorce. 
Fairbairn holds that the apostle “simply required that when one was called to 
office in the Christian church, there should be but one living woman to whom he 
stood related as husband.’ Hofmann and Matthies agree with Huther in suppos- 
ing the meaning to be, “that a bishop is to be a man who neither lives, nor has 
lived, in sexual intercourse with any other woman than the one to whom he is 
married.” The subject.is briefly considered by Dr. Woolsey in his work on Divorce 
and Divorce Legislation. It is, also, discussed in an extended note (Appendix B.) 
in Fairbairn’s Com. on the Past. Epp. Comp., also, the comm. generally. 

The natural interpretation of the words, as affected by the corresponding phrase 
used with regard to widows, the absence of any reference to divorce, the indica- 
tions in early writers that second marriages were not approved, or that abstaining 
from them was commended, and the propriety of special self-restraint on the part 
of officials in the churches, which might, not improbably, have been felt by Chris- 
tians at that time, strongly favor the explanation which makes the apostle refer to 
second marriages. On the other hand, it is clear that Paul allows widows to re- 
marry, in 1 Cor. vii. 39, and that his whole treatment of the subject of the mar- 
riage relation, as, indeed, that which we find throughout the N. T., considers its 
obligations as ceasing with the death of either party. In the case of the younger 
widows, he even recommends second marriage in this epistle (v. 14). This recom- 
mendation in their case, however, can hardly be regarded as inconsistent with a 
statement opposing re-marriage in the case of presbyters.—(d) The words pera 
raone ceuvoryto¢g (ver. 4) are probably, though not certainly, to be connected with 
éyovra «7.2, and referred to the children—oeuy. here denoting propriety and 
becoming modesty in deportment, gravity. So Huther and most comm.—(e) The 
word 7u¢ade_i¢ (ver. 6) apparently refers to the puffed-up or conceited state of 
mind, which might naturally be connected with the elevation of a recent convert 
to such a position as that of a presbyter. The dignity of the position is implied 
by the word, but there does not seem to be anything in. it, or in the word vedgutec, 
which is inconsistent with the Pauline authorship of the letter, or which demands 
for it a later date. The word dcaféA0v undoubtedly, as Huther clearly proves, 


NOTES. 135 
means the devil. This word, in ver. 7, is a subjective genitive. Huther takes it 
in the same way in ver. 6. But «piva isa word which naturally suggests the idea 
of divine judgment, in such a case ; the N. T. conception of judgment as related 
to the devil is that of judgment passed upon him; it is necessary, if Huther’s 
view be adopted, tomake xpiwa mean (as he holds) “the judgment which serves to 
give the devil foundation for accusing man with God,” or (as Holtzm. holds) “the 
judgment of the devil speaking through the heathen,” or to give it some other 
and improbable meaning. For these reasons, the genitive in ver. 6 must be 
regarded as objective. 


X. Vv. 8-13. 


(a) It is noticeable that the qualifications for the office of deacon are mainly 
the same in substance with those for the office of éricxoroc, and that, in both 
cases, they are mainly in the line of general moral character. Both classes of 
officials were to be selected from among those members of the churches who had 
such virtues, and were in such a degree free from immoral and evil habits or ten- 
dencies, that they would have the respect both of the church and of those outside 
of it. The absence of any emphatic presentation of other points may naturally 
indicate an earlier, rather than a later date for the Epistles, and thus point to 
their authorship as within the life-time of Paul. There is certainly no special 
development of ecclesiasticism, and no special alarm indicated as to dangers of 
heresy, in these specified qualifications. Nor is there much to be discovered in 
them, as showing a growth in the character or functions of the offices from the time 
of the earliest notices which we have of them.—(b) That yvvaixac (ver. 11) refers 
to the wives of the deacons, and not to a special order of deaconesses, is rendered 
probable by the considerations mentioned in Huther’s note,—especially, by the 
fact that the writer returns immediately, in ver. 12, to the subject of the deacons. 
This view is taken by A. V., Conyb., Wieseler, Mack, and others. De W., Alf, 
Ell, Plumptre, Hofmann, and others understand the reference to be to deacon- 
esses. The grounds for this view are, that there is no avrov referring to the dea- 
cons, that there were deaconesses in the churches, that ®cabrw¢ indicates a similar 
official character in these women to that of the deacons (comp. ®caitwe of ver. 8 
connecting the deacons with the bishops), and that tord¢ év aovv is appropriate 
to official position. The absence of avtev, however, is less remarkable than the 
absence of the designation as deaconesses; the evidence as to the existence of 
deaconesses in the churches generally, at the date of these ‘letters, is uncertain ; 
dcatrwc is easily explicable on either view ; tord¢ év raow is a phrase which does 
not require a reference to an office, but may be equally applicable to those not in 
official station.—(c) The word Sadyov (ver. 13) is rendered in R. V. by standing. 
‘This rendering seems better than degree, of A. V., and the meaning, though quite 
uncertain, is probably a good standing—an honorable position as connected with 
the office which they hold. The force of év riore: is that of the sphere in which 
the confidence moves, and perhaps, also, that on which it is grounded. appycia 
can hardly be limited, with Huther, to confidence in their official labors. 


XI. Vv. 14-16. 


(a) W. and H., Treg., and R. V. read, with Lachm. and Buttm., é réyer tn 
place of téycov. The latter reading, which is adopted by Tisch., has the support 


136 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


of &, in addition to the authorities mentioned by Huther. The fact that Paul 
was hoping soon to return to Ephesus, when taken in connection with the fact that 
he had left that city not long before the date of the Epistle, and that he had, 
apparently, passed some time there with Timothy before his departure, makes it 
somewhat surprising that he should add to the suggestions of the earlier verses of 
this chapter such a passage as this which now follows—a passage, which gives a 
solemn and formal declaration of the great Christian truth and of the relation of 
the church to it. » Like other peculiarities in the Epistle, which have a more or 
less similar character, it indicates that the Apostle was writing for the churches, 
as well as for his younger companion and friend. In connection with this more 
general design, the explanation which Huther gives of avaorpégeoda as having an 
indefinite subject, how one should behave, conduct oneself, may not improbably be the 
correct one—(b) The common view of the construction of orvAo¢g Kai édpaiwpa, 
that they are in apposition with é«xAyjoia, is that which, on the whole, best accords 
with the position of the words and the general indications of the sentence. The 
assertion of Huther, however, that there is manifestly nothing to be said for the 
opinion of some commentators, that by o7. x. édp. we are to understand Timothy, is 
hardly founded in fact. This reference of the words is in accordance with the 
possibilities of the sentence ; it harmonizes with the reference of o7vAoc to individ- 
uals in Gal. ii. 9, the only other passage where Paul uses the word (comp. also 
Rev. iii. 12); it avoids the mingling of figures, which the other explanation 
involves; and it closely connects the whole statement with the suggestions to Tim- 
othy in a most natural way. If referred to Timothy, however, of must be under- 
stood as the subject of avaorpépeoda. The absence of of; the fact that or. x. édp. 
follows, instead of preceding the words referring to the church; and perhaps the 
somewhat easier connection of ver. 16 with ver. 15, if the other view is taken, 
favor the uniting of the words with écxAyoia, Holtzm. suggests a connection with 
Seov Covroc, after the manner of Mk. vii. 19; Jas. iii. 8; Rev. iii. 12. This, how- 
ever, seems quite improbable in a sentence like the present.—(c) The reading 6c, 
instead of ede, in ver. 16, is now almost universally admitted to be the genuine 
text. So Griesb., Tisch., Treg., Lachm., Buttm., W. and H., Green, Alf., Words., 
Ell.,.de W., Holtzm., Fairbairn, Plumptre, Bib. Com., v. Oost. in Lange, R. V., 
and substantially all recent critics and scholars of note. Dr. Scrivener says, in 
his second edition, 1874, “ We must consider it highly probable (indeed, if we 
were sure of the testimony of the first-rate uncials [referring especially to A and 
C], we might regard it as certain) that... Jedc of the more recent many [must] 
yield to é¢ of the ancient few.” In his third edition, 1883, he repeats this state- 
ment, but adds: “Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains 
untouched,” and closes by saying: “I dare not pronounce ede a corruption.” He 
thus seems to feel the great difficulty of accepting Jedc, but to be, of late, some- 
what more inclined to hesitate in rejecting it. Dean Burgon, in his volume 
entitled “The Revision Revised,” makes a characteristic assault on the reading 
6c, and a defence of Sede, even claiming for the latter reading the Alex. MS., in 
regard to which Alford, twenty years ago, said: “It is to to be hoped that A will 
never again be cited on the side of the received text.” The discussion by Dean 
Burgon in favor of Sede, and that by Dr. William Hayes Ward (Bib. Sac. Jan. 
1865), in favor of 6c, will give the student a full presentation of the case, as 
viewed at present on both sides. Dean Burgon is, probably, the latest scholar of 
much eminence; who will appear in the annals of the defence of the reading Veds, 


NOTES. 137 


and his work, in this section of it, as well as in its other parts, will gain the atten- 
tion of interested students on this account, when the views which it advocates 
have ceased to be supported by learned men.—(d) The result of all the most care- 
ful examinations of the MSS. A and C, which have been made by different 
scholars, and under the most favorable circumstances now possible—although two 
or three among these scholars have doubts—must be regarded, it is believed, as 
decisive, that the original reading of those MSS. was 6¢. This was, undoubtedly, 
the original text of &, and as the reading 6 in D is, in all probability, a corruption 
of 6c, and B does not include the Past. Epp., the earliest manuscript evidence is 
unanimous against Jedc. This evidence is supported by the Syriac and Egyptian 
versions; and by the Latin versions also, which, however, read quod.—(e) If 6¢ is 
adopted as the text, R. V. has probably the correct rendering, making 6¢ the subject 
of each of the verbs: who was manifested, was justified, ete. The zvorfpiov is, thus, de- 
fined to be Christ. The question as to whether Paul believed or taught the divinity 
of Christ does not depend on the textual reading of this verse. If the correct read- 
ing is Vedc, there is a special declaration respecting it here, in that the name Oed¢ 
is given to Him, but the support of the doctrine does not lie in this statement. 


i38 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 1. tAdvow] For this, many cursives and Fathers have 7Advyc, which, how- 
ever, is only a correction, perhaps after 1 John iv. 6.—Ver. 2. Instead of the 
form kexavr7paopévev (Rec. Tisch.), we should probably, after A Ly, read kexavo- 
Typlacuévov (Lachm. smaller ed., Buttm.).—For idiav ovveidgow, which is sup- 
ported by the weightiest authorities D* has (in Matthaei, E) ovveidyow éavtov.— 
Ver. 6, For 'Ijoov Xjiorov, so many important authorities (A D F G, many cur- 
sives, etc.) have Xpiorovd ’Iyoov, that the latter must be held the right reading. — 
™H¢ Kadne diWacKadiac| for which some cursives, ete., have 7% Ka7q didacKadia, 
which may have arisen from a belief that these words are co-ordinate with toi¢ 
Aéyou.—For the Rec. 9 tapyKoAotInxac (Tisch.), Lachm. smaller ed., and Buttm., 
following A 80, have adopted the gen. 7¢ tap7xk., an attraction seldom occurring, 
but not without examples ; see Winer, p. 154 f. [E. T. p. 163. f.].—Ver. 8. In ® the 
preposition pec is wanting before oAiyov; possibly mpo¢ dAiyov may have been 
formed on the analogy of the tpo¢ wavta.—For the Ree, érayyediav, which is found 
in the weightiest authorities, and is received by nearly all critics and editors, K8, 
many cursives have the plural ézayyeAiac. This is defended by Matthaei and 
Rinck as the original reading, but is disputed by Reiche (Comment. crit. I. pp. 
389 f.). It is at least possible that the singular found its way into the text as a 
correction.—Ver. 10. xa? xotl@pev, Rec., supported by F G K, most cursives, ete. 
(Tisch. 7); in A C D8 17, 47, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ete., kai is want- 
ing, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8. Its genuineness is 
very doubtful—Instead of the Rec. ovesdiGéue8a (supported by D L, most versions, 
Theodoret, etc., Tisch. 7), A CF G K8, al., have the reading aywwfdéueda, which 
has been adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. The authorities give a preference 
to the latter reading, yet.it may have arisen from Col. i. 29. Reiche defends the 
Rec. ; we cannot decide with certainty which is original ; see further in the expo- 
sition of the verse—Ver. 12. Between év aya7y and év miotec the Rec. has év 
mvetuare; rightly withdrawn from the text as not genuine by Griesb. Scholz, 
Lachm. Tisch., following the weightiest authorities (A C D F G 31, 47, 70, 71, 
al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Clemens, Chrys. etc.) ; comp. Reiche (Comment. crit. 
I. p. 892)—Ver. 15. For év raow, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly adopted 
raow (without év), after A C D F G® 17, 31, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. ete., Clem. Chrys. 
ete. It is defended, too, by Reiche as the original reading; év appears to have 
been inserted from the analogy of Rom. i. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 19. 


Ver. 1. [On Vy. 1-5, see Note XII., page 153.] In the first five verses 
of this chapter, Paul speaks of the heretics, directing special attention in 
ver. 3 to one point in their doctrine.—rd 6 mvedpa pytd¢ Aéyed] [XII b.] 
The dé connects this verse with the beginning of iii. 16, and connects it by 
way of contrast. Td mvevua is the Holy Spirit, as the source of prophecy. 


CHAP. Iv. 1. 139 


To explain the expression by of zvevuatixoi (Heydenreich) is inaccurate. 
Paul goes back here to the fundamental basis of all prophecy.—pyraec 
(araé Aey.) means: “in express words,” and is used particularly with quota- 
tions.! Heydenreich is inaccurate in explaining it as equivalent to caddc, 
gavepoc; Luther: “distinctly.” The apostle, then, appeals here to a 
prophecy of the Spirit expressly worded. Such a prophecy of the future 
apostasy lay before him in many utterances, both of Christ and of others; 
besides, the Spirit declared them to the apostle himself—Leo is wrong: 
animus mihi praesagit.—ore év borépoue Kaipoi¢ arootHoovtai twee THe TicTewc | 
We might readily take torepor xaipoi here as equivalent to éoyaro. Kacpoi .* 
but we must not overlook the difference between the two expressions. The 
former points simply to the future, the latter to the last time of the future, 
immediately preceding the completion of God’s kingdom and the second 
coming of Christ (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is unsuitable to press 
xaipéc here in the sense of “ the fitting time,” and to translate it with Matthies: 
“in the fitting time hereafter.”—Twee are not the heretics, but those who 
are led away from the faith by the heretics. The apostasy belonged to 
the future, but the heresy to the present. Hofmann thinks differently, 
assigning the heresy also to the future, though the apostle’s expression 
does not warrant this. We must not, however, with Otto, infer that in 
the apostle’s time the heretics were still outside the church.—daroorjoovra 
tHe wiotewc| “This sentence forms the antithesis to what has preceded, iii. 
15, 16” (Wiesinger) ; for the expression, comp. Luke viii. 13; Heb. iii. 12; 
Wisd. iii. 10; 1 Macc. i. 15, and other passages.—zpocéyovrec] comp. i. 4; 
the partic. tells how the apostasy is brought about.—zvebyac. zAdvoic] the 
mvevpata TAdva are in contrast with the rvetua in ver.1; and the former 
are as little to be identified with the heretics, as the latter with the prophets 
(Wolf: spirituales seductores, 7. e. doctores seducentes). The xveiuara are 
rather the active spiritual powers hidden in the heretics, the tools and ser- 
vants of the devil. As the truth is one, so also is its principle one: 7é 
mvevua THC aAnOeiac. Error on the other hand is manifold, and is supported 
by a plurality of spirits, who may, however, be regarded: as a unity : 7d 
mvevua THC TAdvyAc, 1 John iv. 6.—These wvetpara are called z/dva, because 
they seduce man from the truth to falsehood; comp. 2 John ver. 7.—xai 
diackariac darpovior | daoviov is not the objective,* but the subjective geni- 
tive. The daiuéva are the source of the doctrines which are opposed to 
the truth, of the cogia dayoriidye (Jas. 11. 15); comp. Col. 1. 22. It is wrong 
_to suppose that the dauévia are the heretics themselves. As with veya 
in ver. 1, Paul goes back here to the inner grounds; the didackadia: pro- 


1[Huther must mean that pytas is amaég Aey. 
in the N. T.; for it is found in Sext. Empir. 
adv. Log. i. 8: 0 Zevoday pytas dyoiv; also in 
Strabo, i. p. 4 B, and Polybius, ii. 23. 5.—Tr.] 

2Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1: ésxatat nuépar; 1 Pet. 
1.5: Katpos eoxatos; 2 Pet. iii. 3; Jude, ver. 
18; in Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi.; éoxartou 
_ Katpot. 
*Plitt is not wrong in observing that “the 


errors now described by the author were no 
longer matters purely of the future; they 
were already appearing.” 

4Heydenreich: “doctrines regarding dem- 
ons, a characteristic of Essene-gnostic here- 
tics who spoke so much of the higher world 
of spirits, of aeons,” ete. 

5 Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Winer, p. 176 
[E. T. p. 187]. 3 


140 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
ceeding from these form the opposite of the didackadia 4 Tov cwripog juav 
Ocov.) 

Ver. 2. ’Ev tiroxpioe: pevdordywv] Leo: “errarunt sine dubio, qui geni- 
tivos, qui sequuntur, PevdoAdywv, kexavtypracpévor, KwAvdévtwr, lege appositionis, 
junctos esse dicebant cum voc. daijoviev;”? but we must also reject Leo’s 
opinion, that év éizoxp. wevd. was added to the previous statement as a 
second characteristic of the heretics, meaning: eadem simulantes, quae 
simulare solent homines wevdoddyor, etc.; pevdo., KexavTyp., KwAvévTwv denote 
the heretics themselves, and not those whom they imitated. To regard 
the genitive ypevdoAdyor as dependent on didackadriaw, and év troKpicer as 
defining more precisely the substantive following it (Estius: doctrinis, 
inquam, hominum in hypocrisi loguentium mendacium), would make a 
double difficulty of construction. Nor can Luther’s translation be de- 
fended: “by means of such as are speakers of lies in hypocrisy.”  ’Ev 
broxpices is either to be taken with azoorjcovrac (so Bengel: Constr. cum 
deficient ; hypocrisis ea, quae est falsiloquorum, illos auferet; tuvec aliqui, 
illi, sunt seducti; falsiloqui, seductores ; falsiloquorum, genitivus, unice 
pendet ab hypocrisi), or, still better, with zpooéyovrsc (Wiesinger, van 
Oosterzee, Plitt). The objection of Matthies, which agrees with Leo’s 
explanation, that in that case we should have had instead of év either dia 
or évexa with the article, is contradicted by the usage of the N. T. In the 
N. T. év is not seldom used with the instrument, and in regard to the 
article there prevails a greater freedom of use than in classic Greek. 
Hofmann strangely combines da:yoviwv év broxpices pevdoddywv into one idea, 
explaining dacyoviov to be an adjective with pevdoAdywr, and év izoxpice: also 
as a qualification of wevdodédywv in the sense of “ hypocritical.” *—The hypoc- 
risy of the heretics consisted in giving themselves, in obedience to a false 
spiritualism (see ver. 8), the appearance of a spiritually-inspired life — 
The word wevdordyor (“ liars,” Luther) occurs only here in the N.T. In 
sense it is equivalent to wpevdodidacKaroc, 2 Pet. ii. 1, and wevdorpodsrnc, 1 
John iv. 1 (comp. paraiodAdyo, Tit. 1. 10).—kexavrypiacuéven tHv idiav ovveidnow] 
On the grammatical structure, comp. vi. 5 (diedapyévoe GvOpwroe Tov voor; 
the more precise definition is not infrequently added in the accusative, see 
Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 229]), “ branded as to their conscience” (Wahl: 
KexavTyplacpuévyy éyovtec THY Ld. ovveidnow).—It is to be noted that the kavrypidfew 
(cauterio notare) was not only done on slaves “ut facilius possent dis- 
cerni” (Leo), but was also a form of punishment for marking criminals as 
such (comp. Meyer on Gal. vi. 17). As these bore the brand on their 
forehead,—that is the figurative expression.—so do the heretics bear it on 
their conscience, 7.e. they bear in their conscience the knowledge of their 


2Hofmann opposes the view here put for- 
ward that év imoxpioec is to be taken with 


1The expression dayuévia occurs often in 
the synoptic Gospels; in John only in the 


singular. Paul has it only here and in 1 Cor. 
x. Otto uses this last fact as a proof that the 
two epistles were contemporaneous, but he is 
wrong; the reference is different in the two 
eases; in the passage of 1 Cor. it is not the 
“ gnostic” heresy that is spoken of. 


mpogéxovtes, and makes the curious remark 
that év “can only introduce that which is of 
use to me for doing something, not that 
which makes me do a thing only in so far 
as it is of use to another to determine me 
to do it” (!). 


CHAP. Iv. 2, 3. ; 141 


guilt.!. Theodoret (followed by Heumann) wrongly understands the apos- 
tle’s expression to denote moral deadness.?,_ The apostle does not blame 
the heretics for having a conscience completely blunted, but for acting 
against their conscience; comp. Tit. ii. 11: airoxaraxpito¢.—On idiar, de 
Wette remarks that it is not emphatic here; but it is not improbable that 
the apostle had some such side-thought in mind as Bengel suggests : dum 
alios tamen urgent (so, too, Wiesinger). 

Ver. 3. Further description of the heretics. [XII ¢, d.]—Kodvévtwv 
yaueiv] Since even the Essenes and Therapeutae made abstinence from 
marriage a necessary condition of a ‘holy life, there is no ground whatever 
for supposing that this description proves the heretics to have been fol- 
lowers of the later Christian gnostics (especially of Marcion, according to 
Baur).—aréyeotar Bpwuatwv] similar construction in ii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 34; 
the infinitive is dependent on the keAevdvrwv implied in kwAvévtov (=kerev- 
évrwv wh); see Winer, p. 578 [E. T. p. 622]; Buttmann, p. 343 [E. T. 401.]. 
Isidor of Pelusium unnecessarily corrects aréyeobar into avréyeodar. In 
the Epistle to the Romans (chap. xiv.) the apostle speaks of weak breth- 
ren’s anxiety in regard to the enjoyment of many meats, and the heretics 
combated in the Epistle to the Colossians are distinctly described as forbid- 
ding the enjoyment of certain meats ; but neither here nor in these passages 
is it said what kinds of meat were forbidden, nor why (comp. also Tit. i. 14, 
15). Itis, however, not improbable—if we follow the analogy of later 
gnostics—that animal food, and perhaps also wine (Col. 11. 6: év pace 7 
év réoe), are specially meant. There is no indication that the prohibition 
was founded on gnostic dualism (van Oosterzee); it is more probable that 
the false asceticism of the heretics was connected with the Mosaic dis- 
tinction between clean and unclean (comp. Tit. i. 15); so also Wie- 
singer.*—In the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 22) the apostle indicates the 
perversity of such a prohibition in a brief relative clause; and so also 
here.—é 6 Ged¢ éxricev ei¢ peradmw «.7.A.] Different answers have been given 
to the question why only the second, and not also the first error is refuted. 
It may have been that the heretics did not make abstinence from mar- 
riage, as they made abstinence from certain meats, a command laid on 
all. It may have been, too, “that the prohibition to marry stood in 
manifest contradiction with the divine order of creation, whereas the pro- 
hibition of certain meats might appear less objectionable because of its 
analogy with the prohibition in the law of Moses ” (Hofmann). Besides, 
the apostle has already indicated in ii. 15 the opposition of the gospel to 

-this prohibition to marry—The word pera%yy¢ occurs only here, though 
in Acts xxvii. 33 we find peradAaBeiv tpod7c.—The apostle does not content 
himself with saying that God made food to be enjoyed, but he shows at 


1Theopbylact rightly: emet cvvicacw €av- 3 Hofmann, with no good reason, declares, 
Tots akaOapaiav TmoAAnv, dua ToUTO TO auvELdos on the other hand, that attention is directed 
avtav avetadeimrous Exec Tovs KauTHpas tou here to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and to 
pumapov Biov. the weak Christians mentioned in the Epistle 
2yéxpwois Kai amoBoAy maoys aicOyjcews, to the Romans, as well as to the heretics at 
éoxaTn avadynolia’ Oo yap TOU KavTHpos TOTOS Colosse. 
- yexpw0els THY mpoTepay aigOyaww amoBaAAet. 


142 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


the same time how God meant it to be enjoyed, viz.: pera evyapuorttas 
(comp. on this 1 Cor. x. 31). He then limits the general thought by a 
special reference to believers: toig miotoig Kai émeyvwxdor tHv adqderav, as 
those in whom the purpose of creation is fulfilled, solis filiis suis Deus 
totum mundum et quicquid in mundo est destinavit, qua ratione etiam 
yocantur mundi heredes (Calvin). The apostle’s thought is distorted by 
adding “also”’ before roig weoroic, as is done by some expositors.—Heyden- 
reich rightly says that the words are equivalent to wa oi moro kai oi 
éreyvokdres THY GAnO. weTaraBoow avTov peta evyapiotiac. Hofmann unjusti- 
fiably takes exception to this, and—in spite of 67: beginning a new sen- 
tence—seeks to connect toi¢ ioroi¢ not with what goes before, but with 
what follows (!). The added words: roi¢ mucroi¢ x.7.A., Show most clearly 
the perverse conduct of the heretics in forbidding the enjoyment, and to 
believers of all people. Iloroi are “ believers,” and not ‘“ those convinced 
that enjoyment is permitted to them ;” ézeyv. r. a470. also does not denote 
a special class of the zorév: “the Christians who have come to the true 
gnosis” (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the zvcroi themselves, as 
those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognized the truth, ¢.e. the 
divine truth. Kai is epexegetical; comp. ii. 4. 

Ver. 4. "Ore mav xrticua Oeov xaddv] This verse gives the ground of the 
preceding thought, which Hofmann denies. Bengel wrongly takes it to 
be in apposition to aAydeav.—«ticua, which does not occur elsewhere in 
Paul, means here of course the creatures of God destined for nourishment. 
On the principle here expressed, comp. Rom. xiv. 14: obdéy kouviv de avbrod, 
and ver. 20: mavra xadapd; Acts x. 15: @ 6 Oed¢ éxaddpice, ob py Koivov.—kai 
ovdév aréBAnrov] comp. Hiad, iii. 65: obtoe aréBAnr éoti Oedv épixvdéa ddpa; 
and the scholiast’s remark : aréRAyra’ aroBoaje a&va* Ta Urb Gedy, oyoi, Suddueva 
Jépa ovK gots wév apvgcacda. Here the thought stands in contrast with the 
idea of defilement caused by partaking of certain meats. Going back to 
the pera ev yapioriac in ver. 3, the apostle defines it more precisely, though 
not by mentioning an accessory point merely ; pera ebyapiotiac AauBavduevov 
(Eph. y. 20: ebyapiorowvtec révrore trip ravtwr), because God wishes. His 
gifts to be enjoyed with thankful heart, and the purpose of creation is 
therefore fulfilled only by him who partakes with thankfulness. 

Ver. 5 serves to elucidate the thought’ expressed in ver. 4, that every 
meat taken with thanksgiving is good, and not to be rejected.—Ay:dlera 
yap dua Adyov Geov Kai ~vrevFewc} dyidfew is not “declare to be clean and 
permissible,” but “make something holy.” In itself the meat is not 
something holy, for, as a purely material thing, it can be called neither 
holy nor unholy (so also van Oosterzee). It is less suitable to say, with 
Wiesinger, that ‘the «rio being burdened with a curse, is subject to 
uaradrnc and the dovieia tHe @9opac;”’ but it is made holy for those who 
enjoy it by the Adyoc Geot. Wahl and Leo take Oe0v to be the objective 
genitive, and interpret it as “oratio ad Deum facta,” which makes the 
expression synonymous with évrevéie following it; but Adyo¢ Oeod never 
occurs in this sense. Other expositors have supposed that reference is 
made to.some particular passage of the Scriptures, either to Gen. i. 31 or 


a oe. 


CHAP. Iv. 4—6. 143 
Acts x. 15; but de Wette rightly remarks that the words in that case go 
quite beyond ver. 4, and touch on the question whether certain meats are 
clean orunclean. For the same reason, Adéyo¢ Oeot cannot mean generally 
“the expressions of the divine doctrine, the principles of Christianity ” 
(Heydenreich). Since the expression points back to pera edyapioriac in 
ver. 4, and is closely connected with évrevéie, it can only mean the word 
of God occurring in the prayer of thanksgiving (de Wette, Wiesinger, van 
Oosterzee), either in this sense, that the word of thanks itself is called the 
Word of God, inasmuch as it is the expression of God’s indwelling Spirit, 
or because the prayer is supposed to consist of the words of Scripture.— 
Regarding értevéic, see ii. 1. 

Ver. 6. [On Vv.6-10, see Note XIIT., pages 1538-155.] After describing the 
heretics, the apostle turns again to Timothy, exhorting him, in the first 
place, with special regard to the matters last under discussion, and then 
more generally in regard to the duties of his office.—raira izorudésevoc 
toic adeAgoic] tavta [XIII a.] does not, as Heydenreich supposes, pass over 
all intermediate matter and go back to the christological doctrines ex- 
pressed in iii. 16. It is more correct, with Hofmann, to refer it to the 
whole section from iii. 16 to iv. 5 (so Chrysostom); but possibly also Paul 
had in view only the prohibitions of the heretics (Wiesinger ; van Oosterzee 
doubtfully ).—irorit_ecda: (the middle only here, the act.in Rom. xvi. 4), prop- 
erly : “ put under the hand or foot,” may also mean “instruct” (Josephus, 
Antiq. i. 14), as much as “advise” or “command” (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 
8.7); here it stands more in the latter sense; Luther: “point out.”— 
Hofmann wrongly explains it as equivalent to “take as a theme,” and— 
against the natural structure of the sentence—connects it with what fol- 
lows, though in this way it becomes tolerably superfluous.—xarodc éon 
diakovoc Xpisrov Ijcov| Paul here uses didxovoc, inasmuch as Timothy was 
formally appointed to serve in the work of Christ; it has the same 
meaning as “so wilt thou well occupy the office committed to thee (d:axovia, 
2 Tim. iv. 5).” To this is attached the participial clause: évtpepduevoc toic 
Adyoug THE TioTEwe «.7.A.]| The present participle does not stand for the per- 
fect participle, but brings out how Timothy is to behave at all times, in 
order to fulfill his commission as a kaidc didxovog "I. Xp. It declares that 
he is to be one who makes the words of faith his nourishment. It is 
inaccurate, therefore, to translate évtpedouevoc by innutritus (Bengel?), or 
“reared ” (Luther)? The Adyo tye xiotew are the words in which faith 


1Jn the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 49, there praeteriti, innutritus; nutrimentum per- 


stands the following grace before meat: evAo- 
yurTos ei, Kupre, 0 tpedwv we ex vedTnTOS Lov, O 
8500s Tpopyy macy capKki, TANPwWaOV Xapas Kal 
«eUdpocvrns Tas kapdlas Hu@r, va TaVTOTE TacaV 
a@UTapKeLav EXOVTES, TEPLTTEVWMEV Eis TAY Epyov 
ayadov év Xp. Incov, T6 Kupiw nua, dv od cot 
b0fa, Tun Kal KpaTos Eis TOUS aimvas, auyy. 
2Bengel, however, did not overlook the 
signification of the present altogether, since 
‘he explains thus: Praesens cum respectu 


petuum. Chrysostom remarks: 70 dinvexés 
HS €ls Ta ToLlavTa mpocoxns SyAw@v. Winer 
says: “évtpeddouevos shows that the Aoyou rhs 
migtews are to Timothy a permanent means 
of nourishment and culture.” 

3 As to the meaning of the word evtpedec Oar 
(in N. T. admoé Aey.), see Philo, Leg. ad Caj.: 
évetpadys Tots lepois ypaupmacv, and Plato, 
Leg. vii. 798a: ots yap av évtpadwcr vepors. 


144 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


expresses itself. The added words: kai rtij¢ xadje didacKkadiac (see i. 10), 
make the contrast with the heretics more decided, and the further clause: 
n (7¢) mapnxodobdynKac, shows that Timothy had hitherto been faithful to 
pure doctrine. This latter perfect stands in apt contrast with the present 
participle évtpedéuevoc. The original meaning of the verb: “follow near 
any one,” furnishes naturally for the present context the meaning: 
“which thow hast faithfully followed, to which thou hast remained faithful.” 
The translation : “according to which thou hast formed thyself,” is inac- 
curate; the word occurs in the N. T. only here and in 2 Tim. iii. 10, as 
well as in Luke i. 3 and Mark xvi. 17. 

Ver. 7. The exhortation to Timothy in the previous verse, that he 
should continue faithful to sound doctrine, is followed by an injunction 
to keep from heresy.—rove dé BeByrAovc kai ypadderg pibove rapartov] rapactov' 
Thy Tehelav aropuyny aivirrera, Chrysostom: “have nothing to do with.” 
Here, as ini. 4, the apostle calls the heresies pi#o, in reference to the 
fictions they contained; but at the same time he describes them more 
precisely by the adjectives é8yA0. and ypaddeve. On the former, comp. i. 
9 (Luther: “unspiritual”).. It is in contrast with éo.¢, and would be 
manifestly too strong, if the pio were only “things which bear no moral 
fruit,’ which “have an innocent aspect,” and only “possibly lead to 
apostasy ” (against Wiesinger).! Tpadédy¢ (occurring only here) is equiva- 
lent to ‘‘ old-wifish ” (Luther), 7. e. antiquated ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 28. Otto 
regards “the pifoe ypaddece on the formal side as myths, such as are told 
to children by old fathers ;” but the passages quoted by him from Plato? 
do not support his opinion. These merely say that nurses, mothers, and 
more generally old wives, are to tell myths to the children, from which 
we can infer neither that ypadde refers merely to the form of the story, 
nor that Paul had any thought of a reference to children.—The apostle’s 
exhortation does not touch so much on Timothy’s teaching as on his own 
personal conduct; but correctness of conduct is all the more necessary 
that it is a condition of the right fulfillment of his dvaxovia.—ybiyuvate dé 
ceavtov mpdce evoéBevav] [XIII b.] After telling Timothy what he is not to 
do, viz. that he is not to give himself up to the piforg BeBydoic, he tells 
him now what—in contrast to these things—he is to do. The 6é indicates 
not only the transition to a new thought (Hofmann), but also the contrast 
to what has preceded. The figurative expression yvurdfew is used also in 
classic Greek of every straining exercise. This meaning is to be main- 
tained here.*—zpéc indicat finem, ad quem illa yoxvacia vergat (Leo); this 
goal is evoéBeca, t.e. Christian piety rooted in faith. Comp. on this verse, 
2 Tim. ii. 22, 23. 

Ver. 8. The reason for the previous exhortation is given by contrasting 


1 Hofmann is right in saying that BéByAos apostle cannot, however, truly describe in 
does not properly mean “ wicked” or “god- ~-this way the doctrines of devilish liars.” 


less,” but “unholy.” He, however, overlooks 2 Republic, i. 350 BE; ii. 377 C, and 378 D. 
the fact that it denotes not simply the nega- -. ®Theodoret: yupvacias apa xpeia cai Torwr 
tion, but also the opposite of what is holy. Sinvex@v’ 0 yap yuuvatépevos Kal aywvos Mi 


He is wrong, therefore, in maintaining: “ the Ovros aywviferar idSp@tos axpr. 


CHAP. Iv. (7, 8. 145 
the cwpariuxy yopvacia with the yvuracia pic eboéBevav. [XIII ¢.]—# yap 
oupariKy yuwvacia poo ddAiyov éoriv wpédAcuoc| Regarding the meaning of 
swat. yuuv., there are two opinions which need no refutation: the one is 
that it means the ceremonial law; the other is that of Chrysostom, who 
understands by it disputation with the heretics.” It is a question whether 
Paul makes use of the word with or without reference to the heretics. 
Many expositors* adopt the former view, and explain the coparixy yuuvacia 
to mean the practice prevailing among the heretics of abstaining from 
marriage and from certain meats. The connection of ideas is against this 
view, since in the words immediately preceding he was not speaking of 
rules of abstinence, but of the myths of the heretics; the sense is also 
against it, for Paul could not possibly say of the heretics’ mode of life, 
which before he had called devilish, that it was zpd¢ ddAiyov adéAquoc x.7.2. 
Wiesinger thinks the apostle had in mind, not that degenerate form of 
asceticism which was to appear in the future, as he described in ver. 3, but 
“the phenomena of the present,” viz. an asceticism to which even Timo- 
thy (v.28) had some inclination. But since, in Wiesinger’s opinion, even 
this asceticism is to be regarded as an error, we cannot well refer to it the 
words xpoc¢ ddiyov éoriv odéAyuoc—Hofmann understands the copyariny yuu- 
vacia to be a discipline such as the apostle practiced on himself in abstain- 
ing from things permitted ; not, however, as if the self-denial were any- 
thing in itself, but only lest he should be hindered by the needs of the 
body from attaining the goal. For this Hofmann quotes 1 Cor. ix. 27. 
But the discipline which Paul practiced on himself was by no means a 
purely bodily one; it was rather a yuuvacia rpic evoéBecav, since the faithful 
fulfillment of official duty formed part of the eioéBera. The expression is 
therefore to be explained simply from itself, and we must understand by 
it the exercise of the body in general.~—The reason why Paul here speaks 
of bodily exercise is contained in the previous exhortation: yiuvate of rpd¢ 
This he wishes to make emphatic by contrasting with it the 

yuuvavew practiced so carefully among the Greeks, though only xpd¢ oA/yov 

ogéauov. The connection of ideas is by no means, as de Wette thinks, a 
mere “lexical allusion,” nor is the idea itself superfluous.—zpic dAi‘yov is 
in Jas. iv. 14 used of time: “for a short time.” In this sense many have 
taken it here; but the contrasted zpdc¢ zavra is against this. It is inac- 
curate also to regard, as Heumann does, zpic 6%/yov as equivalent to odio 
(Luther: “of little use’); it means “for little.’ Paul does not mean to 
say that the cou. yuuvacia is of no use, but that its use extends to little, 
only to some relations of the present, earthly life.® It is different with 


9 2 
evoé Berar. 


1 Braun, Selecta sacra, i. 10, 2 156. 

2Chrysost.: unde els yusvaciay mote katabes 
geauTor, Siadeyomevos mpods Exelvous’ OV yap EaTL 
mpos Tovs Stectpapmevovs paxomevoy ovjgar 
Tl ToTe. 

*Of the older, Ambrosius, Thomas; of the 
more recent, Calvin, Grotius; also Heyden- 
veich, Leo, Matthies. 

4As Theodoret, Pelagius, Wolf, and others 


10 


(of those more recent, Mack, de Wette, and 
van Oosterzee) have rightly explained it. 

5If oAcyor (without mpés), the reading of &, 
is correct, then the meaning is that which 
Luther has expressed. Still oAcyov might be 
taken also as a milder expression for the 
absolute negation: of little use, i. e. properly 
speaking, of no use, viz. for the calling of 
Christian. But even this view does not 


146 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


that to which Timothy is exhorted: 7 dé evoéBeva tpdg mavta OoéAipde eT] 
A more exact contrast would have been presented by 7 dé yupvacia » mpoc 
evoéBecav ; but Paul could here speak at once of the use of evoéera in order 
to strengthen the previous exhortation. Tlpé¢ zavra is here opposed to 
mpo¢ oAiyov. The general reference thus given must not be arbitrarily 
limited. There is nothing, no active occupation, no condition, no human 
relation, on which the evoéBeca does not exercise an influence for good.— 
érayyediav Exovoa Cuge tHe viv Kal THE peddobonc] This participial clause 
gives a reason for the words immediately preceding, and confirms them. 
De Wette, and following him Wiesinger, explain (by appealing to passages 
such as Ex. xx. 12; Deut. iv. 40; Matt. vi. 33; Eph. vi. 2, and others) («7 
7 vov as equivalent to “a long and happy life.” But Cog with 7 viv cannot 
have a meaning different from_that which it has with 7 peAAoiea. It is 
incorrect also to understand by fw7 “eternal life, life in the full and true 
sense of the word” (Hofmann),! for it is arbitrary to maintain that r7¢ viv 
kai THE weAAovone Was added to Cu only as an after-thought. This con- 
trast forbids us to understand (07 as anything else than simply “ life; ” 
Cum 4 viv is the present, Cw? 7 eAAovea is the future life which follows the 
earthly. The genitive is to be taken as a more remote objective genitive,— 
“promise for the present and the future life ” (so, too, van Oosterzee and 
Plitt). (XIII d.] The thing promised is not indeed named, but it can be 
easily supplied. 

Ver. 9 [XIII e.] serves to strengthen the expression immediately pre- 
ceding (not the thought in iii. 16, against Heinrichs), whereas in 1. 15 
(comp. also iil. 1) the same words refer to what follows. The yap in ver. 
10 prevents us from connecting them with what comes next. Itis no less 
unsuitable to refer them, as Hofmann does, to the 67 following, and to 
regard eic rovro . . . as a parenthesis. This connection is opposed not 
only by the harshness of the construction, but also by the consideration 
that, as a matter of fact, the conduct of the Christian, viz. 7Amixévai k.7.2., 
needed for Timothy no such confirmation as is given in these words.? 

Ver. 10. Eic¢ rovro yap Komiipev' Kai overdiCdueba x.7.2.] The particle yap 
[XIII f.] shows that this verse is to serve as a reason or confirmation of 
the preceding thought that godliness is profitable for all things, having 
promise of this and the future life. Lic rovro is by expositors either 
referred directly to this thought (de Wette, van Oosterzee), or is joined 
with the é7. following (Wiesinger); in the latter case the 7Arikauev points 
only to the thought in ver. 8. The former construction deserves the pref- 
erence, not only because it is more natural to refer the roiro to the thought 
of ver. 8 so purposely confirmed by ver. 9; and also because eic¢ rovro 
cannot be taken as equivalent to dia rovro (by which Theodoret para- 
phrases it), id circo (Beza). Hic always points to a goal (and not to the 


justify the interpretation of yuuzvacia which _2This difficulty is concealed in Hofmann 
we have rejected above. by laying the emphasis on @e@ Govt, so that 
11It is clear that gw7 is not the “ blessed life” muaTos © Adyos x.7.A. is to refer to the thought 


(Matthies), since evoéBeca itself denotes the that God is a living God. 
blessed life. 


cHAP. Iv. 9, 10. 147 


reason of something.) "HAmckévac, however, as an already existing condi- 
tion, cannot be regarded as the goal to which the xonvav is directed ; hence 
Luther’s translation: “to this end we labor also... that we... have 
hoped,” cannot be justified. The meaning therefore is: In regard to this, 
that godliness has promise, viz. in order that this promise may be fulfilled 
in us, we labor.—With the Rec. Kal KOTL@mEv Kal overdiGoueba, Kal... kai 18 
either equivalent to “both . . . and,” or the first «ai is equivalent to “vea 
also,” and the second «ai is simply “and.” In the former case the two ideas 
corvav and ovedifecbar are more widely separated ; in the latter, they are 
more closely connected. The second view seems to bemore natural. There 
is very weighty authority for the reading: kot@pmev Kal ayoriloueta, which 
also gives a thoroughly appropriate meaning; but still the Rec., for which, 
too, almost all expositors 1 have decided, might be preferred. The change 
of dveiCducba into aywriféuela May be easily explained from the following 
facts, that in Col. i. 29 xomay is joined with aywrifectar, that dvedifer does 
not occur elsewhere in Paul (except at Rom. xv. 3 in an O. T. quotation), 
that the passive dvesdiCoueba does not seem suitable, whereas aywrléueba 
agrees well with the figure in ver. 8. On the other hand, the change of 
aywvitoueda into dvecdiCoueba 18 scarcely explicable. The plural kora@yev 
is not to be limited to the apostle, or to him and Timothy; it expresses 
the general Christian consciousness. The verb, often joined with 
another verb which has in it the idea of active exertion (1 Cor. iv. 12; 
Eph. iv. 28; Col. 1. 29), does not denote simple labor, but labor with 
trouble and suffering : “ to toil and moil ” (Heydenreich) ; «at dvediCoueda 
again points to the reproach which the Christian bears from the world. 
Overditouesa is a “ concise expression for we endure to be slandered” 
(Wiesinger).—ore HArixaper imi Geo Cavre] If ei¢ tovr0 refers to what pre- 
cedes, ore is equivalent to “because;” the meaning in that case is: in 
regard to the promise given to evoéBera, We take trouble and reproach» 
upon ourselves, because we have set our hope on the living God, and are 
certain, therefore, that that promise does not remain unfulfilled. ‘Or 
refers to both the preceding verbs, and does not merely stand “in close 
connection with the latter,” as van Oosterzee without reason thinks. The 
perfect 7Amixayev as here: 1 Cor. xv. 19; 2 Cor. i. 10.—God is here called 
the living God, inasmuch as He fulfills what He has pronised.—FEAzmicew 
is construed with é7i and the dative, because the living God is regarded as 
the ground on which the hope rests. The construction is only found here 
at vi. 17, and at Rom. xv. 12 in an 0. T. quotation. Elsewhere éArifew 18 


‘construed with év, or ec, or éri and the accusative—The relative clause 


bc ote owTap Tavtav avdparwy, pdduota TioT@v SeYVeS as a seal of the hope 
grounded in God. Since God is the owrgp, this hope, too, cannot be vain; 
de Wette is wrong, therefore, in asserting that this clause is “out of all 
keeping.” —The first words are explained by ii. 4: d¢ tavrac avdporove Béher 
codpva. By pddicta motov it is indicated that the will of God unto 
salvation is realized only in the case of believers. Mdéavora does not stand 


1De Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, and others. 


148 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


here “unsuitably ” (de Wette); it rather gives suitable expression to the 
thought that God is and continues to be the cwr#p for all, whether they 
desire cwrypia or not; but in the proper and special sense the owrypia is 
only for believers who really desire it. 

Ver. 11. [XIII g.] Mapayyeare radra nai didacke] Timothy is to proclaim 
to the community that which Paul has enjoined to him. Taira refers not 
only to what is in ver. 10 (according to Hofmann: “to God’s living power 
and willingness to help ”), but to everything that has been said previously 
in regard to evoéBeca. The two verbs rapayyéArew and diddoxew tell how 
he is to proclaim these things. They are not distinguished from each 
other as referring, the one to private, the other to public instruction, nor 
as expressing, the one, generally public proclamation, the other, more 
especially exact instruction, €xplanation, information (Matthies); but 
mapayyéAdew, Which in the N. T. has constantly the sense of “ command,” 
indicates that Timothy is to hold up these things (raira) to the community 
as the standard of their conduct. 

Ver. 12. [On Vv. 12-16, see Note XIV., pages 155, 156.] From this 
verse on to the end of the chapter, Paul instructs Timothy how he is to 
behave towards the community that his rapayyéAAew kai diddoxevv (ver. 11) 
may not bein vain. [XIV a.]—pydei¢ cov rie vedryroc katagpoveitw] [XIV b.] 
cov is dependent on r7¢ vedrnroc, Which is the object of katagpov. Wahl, on the 
contrary (followed by Leo and Matthies), construes cov directly with xaradp., 
and takes r7¢ veér. as a genitive defining the substantive more precisely 
(= pydeic dia tiv vedtyTa Katadpovgon cov, Chrysostom), so that xaradp. here 
(like karyyopeiv) would be connected with a double genitive (comp. Buttm. 
p. 143 [E. T. 165]). This construction, however, is more forced than the 
former, and xaragp. occurs nowhere else with it.—According to the form 
of the sentence, the command is directed to the community, but in sense 
to Timothy. Timothy is not to permit the authority entrusted to him as 
representative of the apostle, to be limited on account of his youth: . 
“permit no one to despise thy youth.” The aiaa, however, attached to this 
injunction shows that he is to effect this especially by his Christian 
conduct; most expositors find here-only this last thought—That he may 
retain respect, he is to make himself an example to all: a4Aa rixo¢ yivov tov 
motov. A comma is not unsuitably placed after tiordv, giving the clause 
greater independence, and making the qualifications that follow: év Ady 
«.7.A., more emphatic. On the exhortation rizo¢ yivov, comp. besides Tit. 
li. 7; Phil. iii. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 9; 1 Pet. v. 3. Tivov does not mean 
“become,” as if Timothy had not been so hitherto, but “be.” The next 
five words: év Adyw x.7.4., tell wherein Timothy is to be an example to 
believers. We cannot but observe that theré is a certain order in the 
succession of the words. First we have év 26yw and év dvacrpodp. Adyoc 
includes every kind of speaking (not merely doctrine), i. e. teaching, exhort- 
ing, Warning, comforting, etc., both im public assemblies and in private 
intercourse. ‘Avaotpogf is the life as embodied in deeds. Word and life 
are the two forms of revealing the inner hidden disposition. To this inner 
life we are directed by the next words: év ayarn, év riorec, which denote 


CHAP. Iv. 11-14. 149 
the powers that give motion to the Christian life. The last word: év dyveig, 
gives, finally, the nature of the life that is rooted in faith and love. The 
word does not denote here specially chastity in the relation of sex, but 
generally “purity of moral behavior” (Hofmann); comp. ayvéc, v. 22; 2 
Cor. vii. 11; Jas. ili. 17; dyvérnc, 2 Cor. vi. 6; ayvivew, Jas iv. 8; 1 Pet. 1. 22; 
1 John iii. 3. 

Ver. 13. “Ewe épyouac] comp. iii. 14. De Wette says in explanation: “so 
long as thou in my absence dost preside over the church at Ephesus.” 
This does not agree with the circumstances, inasmuch as Timothy had 
not been installed as the regular superintendent of the church. That was 
an office held more by presbyters.—zpéceye (i. 4, 11. 8, iv. 1): “curam et 
studium nava;” de Wette: “ wait.” —rq dvayvécer, Th TapaKAjoet, TH didackaric] 
Bengel rightly says: “lectioni Scripturae sacrae in ecclesia; huic adjun- 
guntur duo praecipua genera, adhortatio, quae ad agendum et doctrina, 
quae ad cognoscendum pertinet.”—avayrao in Acts xiii. 15, 2 Cor, iii. 14, 
is used of the reading of the law and the prophets in the synagogue; this 
custom was continued in Christian congregations——The two expressions 
rapakaAnow and didackadia are found elsewhere in connection with one 
another (Rom. xii. 7,8; comp. also mapayyeAde Kai didacke above). Chry- 
sostom is wrong in his explanation: rapakAyjouc’ mpo¢ adAgiove, dWackaria® 
With as little ground do others understand by é:dack. private 
instruction, and by rapax2. public preaching; or also by the former, in- 
struction for catechumens, and by the latter, instruction for the church.? 

Ver. 14. M7 ayéder tov év coi yapiouatoc] [XIV c.| Timothy is not to let the 
xapioua lie unused; he is to apply it diligently and faithfully to the pur- 
pose for which it was imparted to him. This exhortation does not imply 
blame, nor does that given in 2 Tim. i. 6—The word yapuopa may be 
applied to every gift of God bestowed on man by God’s yap. In the 
N. T. it denotes both generally the new spiritual life wrought in the 
believer by the Holy Spirit, and also specially every faculty imparted for 
special Christian work (ixavéryc, comp. 2 Cor. iii. 5). Here, where he is 
speaking of Timothy’s official work, it can only mean the faculty given 
him for the office (not simply “the gift of teaching,” as Hofmann thinks), 
in regard both to the kvBépryowe and specially to the rapdxAnow and didac- 
xadia (not, however, as Chrysostom explains it, the didackadia itself). It is 
not to be taken as denoting the office itself; the év coi is against this, and 
nowhere in the N. T. has the word this meaning.2—é £6667 co:] not as 


mpoc TavTac. 


tinguishing in the office—{1) the rights of 
office ; (2) the occupations of office) as the 


1Van Oosterzee’s remark is also wrong: 
“The former was necessary for individuals 


in special circumstances, the latter for all 
every day;” because all need continually 
both the éSacxadia as well as the mapakAnots. 

2Otto grants, indeed, that xdpioua never 
stands exactly for office, but thinks that 
xdpisua may be used as a predicate of the idea, 
office, which is certainly right. Otto, how- 
_ ever, does mot wish to take xapiova here as 
the office generally speaking, but (dis- 


rights of office: “A position of power working 
out from within.” To é he assigns the 
meaning “resting upon some one;” but, 
whatever Otto may say against it, the avagw7v- 
perv (2 Tim. i. 6) does not accord with that 
idea. So long as any one holds the office, the 
rights of office remain to him undiminished; 
for these lie not in the person, but in the 
office, in the person only as holding the office 


150 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Heinrichs says: a me, Apostolo, but, as a matter of course, by the Holy 
Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 4).—d.a rpodyreiac pera éxibécewc Tov Yeipov Tod rpeoBurepion] 
dua is here “by means of,” so that the zpodyreia is to be regarded as the 
means through which the yapiua was given to Timothy (by the Holy 
Spirit). It is arbitrary to weaken this, the proper meaning of the prepo- 
sition, as Beza does when he explains it: per prophetiam i.e. ita jubente 
per os prophetarum spiritu sancto;? and as Otto also does, when he finds 
here the thought that the ordination was occasioned by the pogyreia. 
Though Hofmann in his Schriftbeweis (II, 2, pp. 278 f.) had explained it: 
“The word of prophecy pointed out Timothy as the one to be appointed 
the apostle’s colleague,’ he now says: “dca xpogyreiag does not mean by 
meuns of prophecy, but in consequence of prophecies.” This latter expla- 
nation, however, agrees with the one which he disputes, since the expres- 
sion “in consequence of” gives not merely the relation of time, but also 
the relation of cause. We must reject even the qualification of the mean- 
ing which Matthies demands: ‘The fundamental meaning of the prepo- 
sition 6:4, which may be shortly defined as means, may be so modified 
in many cases as to give the manner in which something is done, or the 
intermediating form under which something comes into life.” We must 
reject this, because, as de Wette rightly remarks, there would otherwise 
be no indication of a relation of cause. Besides, such passages as Acts 
viii. 17, 18, ix. 17, xix. 6, 2 Tim. i. 6, prove that we must keep by the 
proper meaning of dia. The zpogyreia is mentioned as the means, but in 
close connection with éri@ecie tov yepav. Tpodyreia (i. 18) is not equivalent 
to “foretelling,” but is more generally the word proceeding immediately 
from the Holy Spirit—whether the word of promise, or of exhortation, or 
of prayer. This word was spcken at the time (we7a) when the presbytery 
laid their hands on Timothy and appointed him to his ministry. 
ixibécewce T. x. i8 to be taken in close connection with 6:a zpogyreiac; the 
laying on of hands is to be regarded as part of the means; comp. 2 Tim. 
i. 62 Otto wrongly says: “The laying on of hands is not a coefficient of 
the ordination, but ‘an act connected with the ceremony of ordination ; 
the ydpuza was imparted to Timothy along with the laying on of hands, 
not by means of the laying on of hands.” Wherein, then, did the cere- 
mony of ordination consist? It is curious that Hofmann, influenced by 
2 Tim. i. 6, says regarding werd, that “it was of course the apostle’s busi- 
ness to impart the gift to Timothy by laying on of hands,” but then grants 
that “the presbytery of Timothy’s home-church took part in the laying 
on of hands,” without telling us what then signified the presbytery’s lay- 
ing on of hands. The hands were imposed by the presbytery, but Paul 


Mera 


For such a meaning of ev, Otto has produced 
some passages from classic Greek, but none 
from the N. T. 

1Beza goes still farther wrong when he 
continues: “ Potest tamen etiam sic accipi, 
ut idem valeat eis mpopyreiay, i. e. ad prophet- 
andum; vel év mpopyrtea, ita ut quod sit hoc 


donum exprimat apostolus.” 
2De Wette rightly: “The pod. is only 
named as a part of the whole act of conse- 


eration by which the xap. was imparted, and 


the preposition 6:4 is not to be referred in 
strictness only to mpo@., but also to the next 
words,” 


CHAP. Iv. 14. 151 
does not say who uttered the zpogyreia. Leo remarks: “adfuerunt for- 
tassis, quum manus imponebantur Timotheo, prophetae Christiani, qui 
praesagiebant faustissima quaevis, et dignum eum fore dicebant ecclesiae 
doctorem ” (similarly Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others). It is, how- 
ever, most probable to assume that they who uttered the xpogyreia were 
the same as they who laid their hands on Timothy,! so that we cannot 
think here of prophets, in the narrower sense of the word, as present at 
the ordination —The ézi@eoue tov year is well known as a symbolic action 
of the early Christians ; it was the symbol and means not only of impart- 
ing the Holy Spirit in general (Acts viii. 17, xix. 6; Heb. vi. 2), but also 
of bestowing the inward equipment for a special Christian ministry (Acts 
vi. 6, xii. 3; comp. also Acts xiv. 23). By the presbytery, we must under- 
stand the college of presbyters belonging to the church in which the 
hands were imposed. What church this was, we are not told. Ecclesi- 
astical tradition, followed by Mack, makes it the church at Ephesus; 
Matthies, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others think it more probable 
that the ordination took place at Lystra, where Paul assumed Timothy as 
his companion, and that the ordination was held for this very purpose.” 
To this latter view we must object, that there is no passage in the N. T. 
to prove that the reception into the number of the colleagues of the 
apostles was made with such a solemn ceremony. It is more natural to 
suppose that such a reception took a freer form, and that a regular ordi- 
nation was only held after a more independent position had been assigned 
to the colleague, a position not merely of carrying out certain instructions, 
but of representing the apostle in a more complete way, viz. in a particular 
church, such as Timothy now held. Perhaps, therefore, this ordination 
of Timothy had taken place when Paul on his departure for Macedonia 
left Timothy behind him in Ephesus as his substitute (i. 3); still it is also 
possible that it had been done on some earlier occasion.—It is strange 
that in 2 Tim. i. 6 the laying on of hands is mentioned only as the act of 
the apostle. Paul might certainly be speaking there of some other occa- 
sion than here, for the consecration by laying on of hands might be 
imparted on different occasions to the same man. It is more probable, 
however, that he is speaking of the same occasion in both passages, 
and “that Paul imposed hands along with the elders, but as the first” 
(de Wette).—It is further to be remarked that the word zpecPurépiov occurs 
elsewhere in the N. T. only as a name for the Jewish Sanhedrim (Luke 
- xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5), and that it is used here only of the college of the 
Christian presbyters of a church. 


1Bengel is wrong: “Constr. prophetiam 
presbyterii, nam manus imposuit Paulus 
Timotheo; impositio manus proprie fit per 
unam personam et quidem digniorem; pro- 
phetia vero fiebat etiam per aequales, per 
plures.” : 

2So also Hofmann, in whose opinion the 
’ “precedent” here alluded to (which, how- 
ever, he is not willing to recognize as an 


ordination) must have taken place in Tim- 
othy’s “ home-church.” 

3 Otto, in accordance with his whole view, 
places Timothy's ordination in the last period 
of Paul’s three years at Ephesus. The 
reasons by which he seeks to establish this 
period as the one most exactly correspond- 
ing in Timothy’s life, are anything but suff. 
cient, 


152 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Ver. 15. In order that Timothy may rightly lay to heart the exhorta- 
tions just given, Paul continues: raita pedéra, év TovToug iodi] tavta refer- 
endum ad omnia ea, quae a ver. 12, usque ad ver. 14, praeceperat Paulus 
Timotheo, Leo.—edAevav occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only at Mark xiii. 
11 and Acts iv. 25, where it means “think, consider, reflect on some- 
thing,” equivalent to meditari. The more original meaning, however, is 
“exercere, carry on something with care;” this is to be maintained here, 
where it is a matter of putting recommendations into practice. De 
Wette: “let this be thy care.”—év robrow iod:] added to strengthen the 
preceding words; it is equivalent in meaning to the Latin omnis (totus) in 
hoe sis..—iva cov 4 mpoxor? davepa 4 tacw | With zpoxorg (only elsewhere in 
Phil. i. 12, 15), “ progress,” not {progressiveness”” (Hofmann), we may 
either supply “in filling thy office” (Heydenreich ; de Wette: to the 
perfection of the God-man, 2 Tim. iii. 17), or more generally, “in the 
Christian life.” The purpose of this lay in the fact that Timothy was to 
be a tiroc tév moter. 

Ver. 16. Cumulat sane h. 1. Paulus adhortationes, unde ejus amorem 
in Timotheum et in Christianos Timotheo subditos intelligas, Leo.—éreye 
ceavt@| “ take heed to thyself,’ refers to ver. 12; kai rH didackatia refers to 
ver. 138. Heinrichs wrongly combines the two together as an hendiadys 
(‘pro ceavré ut possis tradere bonam didackadiav”). On the other hand, 
however, we must not understand the didacxadia to mean the doctrine of 
others (Heydenreich: take heed, that nothing is neglected in the instruc- 
tion of Christians by the teachers placed under thy oversight).—éziyeve 
avroic|] avroi¢ is not masculine, as Grotius and Bengel think, the one 
understanding it of the Ephesians, the other of the audientes. It is neuter, 
and as such it is to be referred not only to what immediately preceded 
(= in this attention to thyself and to the doctrine ”’), but, glancing back 
to robtow, tavTa in ver. 15 (Wiesinger), it is to be referred also to all the 
precepts from ver. 12 onward. Hofmann is wrong in connecting r4 didao- 
kadia With ériveve, and explaining airoic as the dativus commodi; _for, 
on the one hand, no subject precedes to which airoic could be referred ; 
and, on the other, there is nothing to show-that airoic is the dat. com- 
modi.—The exhortations close with words confirming them : roiro yap 
rowv | “if thou doest this” (regarding the form of the clause, comp. ver. 
6); Kai ceavtdv cdcee Kai Tove akobovtdg cov] [XIV d.] Without reason, 
de Wette thinks that cécec has in Timothy’s case a different meaning 
from that which it has in the case of others; that in his case it is to be 
understood of the higher (!) cwrypia, in theirs simply of the cwrnypia. 
Lélew Means originally “save;” but in the N. T. it has in connection with 
Christian doctrine not only a negative, but also a positive meaning. Hence 
we cannot, with Mack, take it here as signifying merely, protecting from 
heresy and its effects.- Luther translates it rightly: “thou shalt make 
blessed,” ete.—7. e. thou shalt further thine own salvation as well as the sal- 
vation of those who hear thee, 7. e. of the church assigned to thee. [XIV e.] 


1Hor. Ep. i. 1, 11, quid verum atque decens curo . . . et omnis in hee sum. 


NOTES. 15a 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XII. 1-5. 


(a) The reference here made to heresies or erroneous teachings seems not to be 
introduced because the writer would discuss them as an independent matter ; but, 
on the other hand, the teachings are spoken of as connected with the duty of 
Timothy respecting them. The point of these verses is thus found in the open- 
ing words of ver. 6.—(b) The prophetic declaration is one which, not improbably, 
the Apostle may have himself received from the Holy Spirit, but it may also, as 
Alf. holds, include the general prophetic testimony which the Spirit bore through- 
out the church. These introductory words are, apparently, a part of what Paul 
would have Timothy call to the minds of the Christians in Ephesus. By the 
mention of this declaration of the Spirit, he would warn them against the errors 
and show them that they were d:dacxaAia dJaipwoviov.—(c) The characteristics of the 
erroneous doctrines which are set forth are twofold, as indicated by kw/vovtwv 
yaueiv and aréyeodar Bpwudtwv (ver. 3). The latter point is closely connected, 
both in the statement of it and in the accompanying words which follow in wv. 46, 
5, with what is said of the Judaistie party in the earlier epistles. Comp. Rom. 
xiv. 1-6; 1 Cor. viii. x. The former point is not alluded to elsewhere, but is 
very probably connected with the Essenic tendency of which we find indications, 
though in another line, in the Ep. to the Colossians. There is nothing here 
which suggests any further progress in error than might easily have taken place 
before the death of Paul. The passage is interesting, as showing how the Apostle’s 
view on the subject of meats remained precisely the same through the successive 
periods of his life—(d) The persons who teach these doctrines and who lead 
astray the tivé¢ are described as characterized by falsehood and hypocrisy, and as 
having their conscience branded with the mark of their own guilt. These points, 
especially if they are to be further explained by what is said in such passages as 
2 Tim. iii. 1 ff., Tit. i. 10 f., indicate a degree of conscious wickedness in these 
teachers, which was beyond what appears in the earlier epistles, and, in some 
degree, beyond what is suggested even in those of latest date previous to the 
Past. Epp. The steady movement along the Jewish line, and outward from it, is, 
however, strikingly manifest as the letters pass on from one period to another, 
and the links which unite the following to the preceding ones, in each case, are 
evident. That yevdo2dyav is dependent on izoxpicer and refers to the teachers, 
not to the dayudva, is admitted by most commentators. 


XIII. Vv. 6-10. 


(a) The simplest and most natural reference of taira in ver. 6 is to the first 
five verses of the chapter. By this reference this entire passage is made to cor- 
respond with those which precede and follow, as bearing upon Timothy’s official 
action and as written especially from the standpoint of suggestions to him. The let- 
ter was for him primarily; its lessons or directions or warnings for the church were 
only through him and the method of his working. By suggesting to the brethren 
these things (itor éuevoe is rendered by R. V. putting in mind ; it possibly means 
- teaching or setting forth (Ell.) or commanding (Holtzm., comp. Huther), Timothy 
would be a good minister of Christ Jesus, i.e. one who, so far forth as this matter 


154 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


was concerned, faithfully performed the duties of his office. The following parti- 
cipial clause presents the subjective condition which will accompany the bearing 
in his own mind, and suggesting to the brethren, the things referred to—that is, 
which will accompany the faithful discharge of duty. He will himself be in a 
state of continual nourishment in and by the words of faith and of the good teach-_ 
ing. The good teaching, which is the healthful teaching of i. 10, is here opposed to 
the errors referred to in vy. 1-5. It is opposed, also, to the profane and old 
wives’ fables of ver. 7, which, quite clearly, are the same with those mentioned 
ini. 4. It is thus evident that the errors alluded to ini. 4 and iy. 1-5 are the 
same, the latter verses giving certain characteristics of them. Indeed, there can 
be little doubt, as the “ito, etc., are spoken of in different places in the three 
epistles, that all the descriptive phrases marking the errors and errorists are to be 
taken together as giving the compréhensive idea of what the heresies were—(d) 
Ver. 7—While refusing and having nothing to do with the fables, Timothy was 
to exercise himself as an athlete—this strong word seems to be used as a complete 
opposite to apaitov—with a view to evoéBeca, This last word, although not 
equivalent to “vor7piov evoe3. of iii. 16, can hardly, when its contrast to the pido 
is noticed, be altogether unconnected in thought with it. Asa teacher of others, 
and called to preside over the churches after the manner of the apostles, this 
friend of Paul was to make earnest effort in the sphere of the kay didackadia— 
the very central truth of which (the vor, evoeBeiac) was 6¢ égavepody K.7.A.—to the 
end of that piety whose final issue was to be eternal salvation—(c) yap of ver. 8 
evidently gives a reason for the exhortation yiuvate. The thought of this yap 
clause is, however, undoubtedly suggested, as are similar figures elsewhere, e. g. 1 
Cor. ix. 24 ff, by the Greek athletic exercises and contests, with which both the 
writer and the person addressed had now been long familiar. The other explan- 
ations mentioned by Huther, which give the word a special reference to abstain- 
ing from meats and from marriage, or a more general one to asceticism, are to be 
rejected. Ell. argues for the latter explanation, that the context seems to require 
a contrast between external observances and inward holiness, and that ascetic 
practices formed a very distinctive feature of the current Jewish theosophy. But 
it cannot be justly affirmed that the context requires this contrast which Ell. 
speaks of. If it were so, we might even expect the author to have expressed the 
thought of ver. 7a in words more exactly adapted toset it forth, using the yuuva- 
Cew form there. Moreover, as Huther and other commentators say, the Apostle 
could not admit that the erroneous doctrines. or practices, to which he had just 
referred as teachings of demons, were profitable for a little. The answer which 
Ell. attempts to give to this objection to his view, that Paul is speaking, not of 
the more extreme development of asceticism referred to in vv. 2, 3, which belonged 
to the vorepor kacpoi, but of a more innocent asceticism of the time then present, 
is quite inadequate, because the only subject to which allusion has been made is 
the asceticism described in vy. 2, 3, and, if there is any close connection between 
ver. 7 and the preceding verses, such as the contrast which Ell. supposes requires, 
tlie allusion here must be to those two verses—(d) The best explanation of Cw7e is 
that which regards it (with Huther) as a mere remote objective genitive, or (with 
Alford) as a possessive genitive—(e) The connection of mordc 6 Adyoc (ver. 9) is 
(as Huther takes it) with what precedes. This is made probable, though not cer- 
tain, by the yap which follows. In 2 Tim. ii. 11, notwithstanding the following 
y4p, the phrase, in all probability, points to what is found in the succeeding clause. 


NOTES. 155 


The decision, in each case, depends on the character of the sentences in the con- 
text. Here the preceding sentence is the one which has the character of a gen- 
eral or well-known saying, such as is required by the formula toré¢ «7.2. In 2 
Tim. ii. 11, the following clause has this character—(/) yap of ver. 10, whatever 
view is taken of zor. 6. Ady.,is to be connected with the clause which precedes 
those words. The determination of the reference of the words elc TOUTO is more 
difficult. Probably, however, Huther is correct in referring them to the state- 
ment that godliness is profitable, etc., and in giving to 67: the sense of because.— 
(g) Ver. 11is made the beginning of a paragraph by Tisch., Treg., W. and H., and 
others, but as Taira evidently refers to what precedes, and there is a turn in the 
thought in vv. 12-16 to what concerns Timothy himself more directly, it may be 
questioned whether the new paragraph should not open with the 12th verse. 


XIV. Vv. 12-16. 


(a) These verses present before us exhortations or suggestions, which would 
seem adapted rather to a young man who was beginning or had recently begun 
his work as a preacher, than to one who, like Timothy, may, not improbably, have 
been at this time from thirty-six to forty years of age, and who had been for many 
years an associate in missionary labors with the Apostle. Possibly, they were 
designed to have a bearing upon other preachers whom Timothy might appoint, 
as well as upon himself, and may have been governed in their form of expression, 
in some degree, by this fact. Possibly they may be accounted for by the fact that 
the Apostle was now becoming advanced in years, and thus was disposed to look 
upon his younger companion as even younger than he really was. But the expres- 
sions of this character which are found here, and in some other places in the eys- 
tles to Timothy, must be regarded as somewhat peculiar and as difficult of expla- 
nation in an entirely satisfactory way. The difficulty is not such, however, as to 
overbalance very weighty arguments which support the Pauline authorship of 
the epistles. Dr. Plumptre thinks that Timothy may not have been more than 
from twenty-eight to thirty-three at this time; but, when it is remembered that 
ne was old enough, at his first appearance in the history recorded in the Acts, to have 
already gained the favorable opinion of the churches both in Lystra and Iconium, 
and to make Paul desirous of associating him with himself as an assistant in his 
missionary work, it is almost impossible to suppose that he was under the age of 
twenty-one at that time, and, not improbably, he was above that age. It is more 
reasonable, therefore, with Bp. Ellicott, to place his age, at the time when this 
epistle was written, at thirty-eight to forty. He could hardly have been less than 
thirty-five, and probably not so young as this. He had been, for fourteen 
years or more, an intimate and most trusted companion of the Apostle—(b) The 
exhortations here given, as well as those of the earlier part of the chapter, havea 
certain reference to Timothy’s public life and relations. It was his action and 
conduct as related to the church, which Paul had in mind. But evidently it is his 
own personal action, as connected with his own personal living in and before the 
church, which is now made prominent—(c) The gift alluded to in ver. 14 is that 
which belonged to Timothy as a preacher—the tapakAjowc and didacKadia, ete.,— 
and the recognition of it, and perhaps its special impartation, is pointed out by 
the accompanying words as having taken place in connection with a public setting 
apart for his work. This gift is said here to have been bestowed by means of pro- 


156 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


phecy. Apparently there was in the case of Timothy something kindred to what 
is recorded in Acts xiii. 1 ff in connection with the setting apart of Panl and 
Barnabas for their missionary work. The laying on of hands was also added in 
the case of Paul and Barnabas. With reference to Timothy this imposition of 
hands is said here to have been by the body of elders; in 2 Tim. i. 6, by the 
Apostle himself. The relation of prophecy to the end in view was that of Divine 
indication or direction that Timothy was to be thus set apart; that of the imposi- 
tion of hands was symbolic. The true relation of the two seems to be indicated 
here by the use of the preposition dia with tpogyreiac and peta with érvdécewce. In 
2 Tim. i. 6, d/a is, by a less strict use, connected with the latter word. Huther 
seems disposed to believe that this ordination took place when Paul left Timothy 
at Ephesus on his own departure for Macedonia. But there is no sufficient reason 
to reject the view that it was earlier than this, and the word avafwrupeiv of 2 Tim. 
i. 6 rather favors that view than otherwise. Whichever of these views is correct, 
the ordination was by the elders, Paul uniting with them (unless 2 Tim. i. 6 
refers to another oceasion, which is quite improbable), and nothing in the matter 
of ordination beyond this can be inferred from the passage-—(d) The last clause 
of the 16th verse combines the results of the exhortations given, as affecting both 
his own future and that of those over whom he presided or to whom he preached. 
This result will be salvation. The prominent thought in the writer’s mind, in 
accordance with all that has preceded, is, probably, that, through such action as 
would tend to his own salvation, Timothy would secure the salvation of his 
hearers. A certain special emphasis is thus laid upon kai rod¢ akobovrag cov.—(e) 
It has been quite commonly supposed that Timothy had a certain timidity of 
character, which led the Apostle to give him such exhortations as that which is 
found at the beginning of ver. 12. There is, apparently, no evidence of this, 
except that which the exhortations suggest. They would seem, in themselves, to 
suggest youthfulness or inexperience rather than timidity, but may possibly be 
accounted for in a measure, if not indeed wholly, by the latter. The interweav- 
ing in the epistle of personal counsel with directions which were to affect others, 
or the churches, is so remarkable, that it must everywhere be borne in mind 
in case of questions or difficulties which arise. 


or 


CHAP. V. 157 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 4, pavéavétwoarv] The reading pavfavétw, which is found in some cur- 
sives, 3 35, and many others, as well as in Vulg. Clar. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast. 
Pel., is to be regarded as a correction, ti¢ y7pa being supposed to be the subject of 
the verb. As to the correctness of this supposition, see the exposition.— 
axédextov] The words xaAov kai, which precede in the Ree., are rightly omitted 
from the text by Griesb., who follows all uncials, very many cursives, versions, 
etc. ; they are beyond doubt taken from ii. 3—Ver. 5. Instead of éxi tov Oedv, 8 
and some other authorities have the reading é7i xipiov.—Ver. 8. rv oikeiwv] The 
article is wanting in A D* F GS; probably not genuine; Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
8 omitted it—For the active tpovoet (Tisch. 7), D* F G K 8, al., have the mid- 
dle tpovoeira (Tisch. 8), which, however, may be a correction after Rom. xii. 17; 
in 2 Cor, viii. 21 the reading is doubtful—Ver. 10. érexvorpdgycev] The reading 
érexvogopecev in F G, gr. is strange, since the word occurs nowhere else.—Ver. 1L 
For kataorpyvidowor (Rec. Lachm. ed. maj., Tisch. 7, following C D K L®, most 
others), A F G 31 have the reading xataotpyvidcovery (Lachm. ed. min., Buttm. 
Tisch. 7). The infrequency of the construction of ovav with the indie. pres., 
which occurs only a few times in the N. T. (compare especially Rey. iv. 9), might 
be an argument for the originality of the latter reading; but most authorities are 
against it—Ver. 14. Before vewrépac there stands in D* and some cursives the 
article tac; some other cursives, as well as Slay. Chrys. Theodor. ete., have y#pac 
after vewrépac; clearly an explanatory correction—Ver. 15. It is doubtful 
whether tvec was originally placed before or after é&etparycav, For the former 
position (Rec. Tisch. 8) we have the authority of § C D K L P, al. ; for the latter 
(Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7), that of A F°G, al—Ver. 16. The Rec. miotoc¢  mioTH 
is found in D K L, nearly all cursives, some versions, and in Ath. contra Arr. 
Tisch. 7 retained the Rec. ; on the other hand, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 omitted 
moto¢ 7. The expositors (also Reiche) have declared for the Ree. It is to be 
noted further, that in Vulg. ed. Ambros. Aug. Pel. the words 7 7oT7 are omitted, 
and also that in Boern. Vulg. ms. the translation si quis fideles habet viduas is 
found. For further remarks, see the exposition of the verse.—Instead of ézapxeitw 
(Rec. Tisch. 7, following C D K L P, al.), A F GW have the middle éxapxeictw 
’ (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch: 8), which is indeed the original reading, the change being 
occasioned by the év#pxecev in ver. 10, and the étapxéoy in ver. 16.—Ver. 18. For 
Bowv ahodvra ov diyudcerc, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of AC P 37, 57, 
78, 80, al., Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. ete., read ot giuaaeie Bodv ado@vra, which, 
however, might be a correction after 1 Cor. ix. 9. Tisch. has the common read- 
ing.—Ver. 20. After toc, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D* Clar. 
Theoph. Ambros. Jerome, read dé, which in F G, Boern. Vulg. ms. is found after 
auaptavovrac. This variety in the position of dé makes it suspicious in any case.— 
. Ver. 21. Xpiotod "Incot (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Reiche, etc.), instead of 
the usual reading xvpiov "Ijoov Xpiotov. Against xupiov we have the testimony of 


158 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


A D* FG 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Basil. ete., and for Xpiorotd 'Iyjoob 
we have that of A D* G 17, 31, 73, al., versions, even the Sahidic and Fathers.— 
For mpécxiiow (Ree., with the authority of F G K, many others, It. Vulg. ete.) it 
is too rash, with Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D L 10, 31, al., Ath. 
Bas. etc., to read tpdoxAyow ; because, notwithstanding the testimony of the oldest 
Mss., the sense almost imperatively demands tpéckiioww, This is a case where 
Tisch.’s words (see the article “ Bibeltext des N.T.” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopddie, 
U. pp. 183 f.) apply: “In spite of the great preference to be given to our oldest 
Greek Mss., we must not overlook the fact that sometimes those opposed to them, 
and centuries later, have at the same time the authority of much older versions 
and Fathers.” Tisch. retained the Rec. ; he explains (1. ¢. p. 164) mpéckAyow as 
an itacism occasioned by the dictation of the text; similarly Reiche on the pas- 
sage.—Ver. 23. Rec. oréuayov oov (Fisch. 7, after D F G K L, al.); the oov is 
wanting in A D* P®& (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8); in any case, the later addition is 
easier to explain than the omission—Ver. 25. After @caiTwc, Lachm., on the 
authority of A F G g., inserted dé; it is possible that dé was struck out by a 
copyist on the analogy of ii. 9—rTa «ada épya] Instead of this reading, A D F G 
& 37, 116, al., Vulg. Clar. Boern. Theophyl. Aug. Ambros. Pelag. are decisive for 
7a épya ta kaAd (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.).—Instead of the Rec. éo7: after mpédnAa, 
there stands in D F G P 17, 67* 93, al., eiocwv; in A 8 67** it is omitted (Lachm. 
Buttm. Tisch.).—divatac] Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. read the plur. divavra:, 
on the authority of A D®& 17, 44, 67, 71, al., plur. edd. Theodoret. 


Vv. 1, 2. Directions regarding Timothy’s behavior towards elder and 
younger church-members of both sexes.—zpeoBurépw py éxutagtnc] Chrys- 
ostom rightly remarks: dpa rd agioua viv gyoiv; ob oluat’ aAAG wept wavTdg 
yeynpaxéroc¢. Otherwise we could not but take vedrepor as equivalent to 
didxovo., and understand by vedérepac the deaconessess, which, however, 
would be arbitrary. There is, besides, no ground for Mack’s opinion, that 
the oi veérepo. mentioned in Acts v. 6 (ver. 10: of veavioxor) were “ church 
servants.” By far the greater number of expositors rightly agree with 
Chrysostom.—érixAgjocew] only octvurring here, properly “strike upon,” 
then ‘scold, make violent: reproaches.” The opposite: Gal. vi. 1, xarap- 
ritew év mvebyate xpadrntoc. It is presupposed: in this and the next exhor- 
tations that the church-members named had been guilty of some 
transgression or other.—daAAd mapakddee o¢ rarépa x.7.4.] It is not to be 
forgotten that Timothy was still a vede. As such he is in his office to deal 
in childlike respect with the elder men and women, if they had rendered 
themselves liable to his correction.—vewrépove d¢ adeAgodc] supply only 
rapaxaaec; still Bengel is right in meaning when he remarks on ,7 
imemanenc: hoc pertinet etiam ad ea, quae sequuntur. By dc adeAgoice and 
&¢ adeAgdc it is implied that Timothy was not to exalt himself over those 
who were of the same age as himself or younger, but that he was to deal 
with them in brotherly love as his equals.—The addition év racy dyveia, 
which follows &¢ adeAgac, may grammatically be referred to all the mem- 
bers; but Chrysostom! and most expositors since, connect it closely with 


1Ohrysostom: wy molt, dyol, THy Tis wikews MOvOY EimYS apapTiav, aAAa wydé Vrofnav, not, 


cHAP. v. 1-4. 159 
the words immediately preceding. Rightly; since, even when taken in 
the more general sense of “ purity of morals” (iv. 12), it cannot rightly be 
referred to the preceding relations; but it is very appropriate to the last, 
all the more if it be taken in the more special sense of “modesty, 
chastity.”’! 

Ver. 8. [On Vv. 3-16, see Note XV., pages 178-181.] From this to ver. 16 
we have instructions regarding the widows of the church. [XV a.]—yapac - 
t/ua] Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, and most recent expositors, among 
others, de Wette and Wiesinger, refer riza to the support of the widows 
by money. De Wette explains riva directly as “ care for them, supportthem,” 
adding, “he isspeaking of support from the church-purse.” Wiesinger, 
on the other hand, remarks: “ We do not say that tudo means ‘support’ 
exactly, but it means an honoring which was to manifest itself in support- 
ing them.” In proof of this view, appeal is made to the passages in Acts 
vi. 1, xxviii. 10; Matt. xv.4-6; but wrongly. In the two last passages the 
meaning “support with money” can only arbitrarily be given to tua@v 
(see Meyer on Acts xxviii. 10); and though the widows were supported by 
the church, as we learn from Acts vi. 1,? we cannot from that draw any 
inference as to the meaning of tyu@. But even the context does not 
necessitate us to specialize the meaning. Granted that all that follows 
referred only to money-support to be given to the widows, why should not 
these special exhortations be introduced by one of a more general nature? 
Besides, the support mentioned being the business of the church, and not 
of Timothy alone, the apostle—according to the analogy of karaieyéobu 
(ver. 9)—would not have written riva, but yypac tiuacAwoav. Hence, with 
several old and some recent commentators, such as Matthies, van Ooster- 
zee, Plitt, Hofmann, we should retain the usual meaning of ryu@v. Their 
support by the church is simply a consequence and proof of the ryav.— 
rac évtwc yhpac] is added to define more precisely what widows Paul was 
thinking of, viz. those who are widows in the true and proper sense of the 
word (Luther: right widows). *Ovrwe is used as an adjective only here in 
the N. T2 What kind of widows are meant thereby, we are to infer from 
what follows. : 

Vy. 4-8. [XV b.] There are two opposing views regarding the explana-, 
tion of this section. (1) The view upheld by the majority of recent com- 
mentators, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, which is as follows. 
Paul is giving Timothy instructions to support the “veal” widows. From 
these he distinguishes (ver. 4 being in contrast with ver. 3) the widow who 
has children or grandchildren, because they are able and ought to care for 
her. With pavOarvérooay we should supply as subject récva # éxyova, and 


Sas° ere 15n yap ai mpds Tas vewTEepas yevouevat 
omtAla SvoKdAws Stapivyovaorw vrowiar, det 5é 
yivecOat mapa Tov émtaxdmov Kat TovTO, dia 
TovTo, ev maon ayveia mpooriOyor.—On the 
words s adeApdas, Bengel briefly and aptly 


says: hic respectus egregie adjuvat castitatem. 


1Comp, Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. p. 36: 


Kad’ jAtkiay Tovs pév viois Kat Ovyarepas 
voodmev, Tos Sé adeAdovs Exomev Kai adcApas- 
kal THs mpoBeByxdcr Thy TOV TaTépwy Kal 
MyTEpwv TYLHY amrovepoper. 

2Comp. also Ignatius, ad Polycarp. chap. iv.; 
Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. 67. 

8 Plato, Phaedr. 260a: ta 6vtTws ayabe 


160 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


we should understand by rév idiov oixov and roi¢ rpoydvoe the widowed 
mother or grandmother. Ver. 5 contrasts again with ver. 4; kai peyovwpévn 
explains the signification of 7 évtw¢ yipa. The predicate Hamme x.7.2. 
denotes the life-work which the “right,” i.e. the forsaken, widow has to 
fulfill, her fulfillment of it being a necessary condition of receiving support. 
Ver. 6 declares negatively what conduct the apostle expects from an 
évtws yxypa, and to such conduct Timothy (ver. 7) is to exhort them. At 
ver. 8, Paul returns to ver. 4, 7¢ referring to the widows’ relations, and 
Tov Wiwv Kat wadcora [ror] oixeiov to the widows themselves.—(2) The view 
upheld by most older and some recent commentators, especially Matthies 
and Hofmann, which is as follows. After enjoining on Timothy to honor 
the “real” widows, Paul first directs the widows who have children or 
grandchildren (still uncared for), to show these all loving care, and 
thereby recompense the love shown to themselves by their parents. The 
subject of pavtavétwoar is tie yapa (as a collective idea); tov idcov olxov are 
the children or grandchildren, and oi zpéyovo the dead parents of the 
widow. Ver. 5 describes the “real” widow as one who in her loneliness 
leads a life pious and consecrated to God; and asa contrast to this we 
have the picture of a wanton widow in ver. 6. In ver. 8, again (ver. 4), 
widows who have relations needing their care are again reminded of the 
duty of this care.—Each of these views has its difficulties. Against 
the second view, the supporters of the first maintain the following points: 
—(1) that as ver. 4 is in contrast with ver. 8, and ver. 5 in contrast again 
with ver. 4 (dé), the yjpa spoken of in ver. 4 cannot be regarded as 
belonging to the évtwe yipac; and (2) that as evceBeiv (ver. 4) applies 
more naturally to the. conduct of children towards their mother (or 
grandmother) than vice versa, and as the thought: the widow is by her 
care for her children to make recompense for the care shown to herself 
by her parents, is ‘somewhat far-fetched” (de Wette), the évrec yipa can 
only mean the widow with no relations for whom it is her duty to care.— 
But the first view has also its difficulties. If we adopt it, we find it strange 
that the apostle should not have written simply airy for rdv idcov-olxoy, 
and airy for roic mpoydvorc, all the. more that oi mpéyovor is a name for 
“progenitors.” Further, zpérov, which Wiesinger translates inaccurately 
by “before all,” does not get its full force. It is arbitrary to understand 
by téxva } éxyova, grown-up children, especially as the expression réxva 
éyew makes the children appear dependent on the mother (comp. iii. 4; 
Tit. 1. 6). De Wette says regarding ver. 5: The author would have more 
clearly said: “ Remind a true and forsaken widow to whom thou dost 
give support, that it falls upon her to show an example of confidence in 
God and of continual prayer;” but we can hardly think that the apostle 
would have expressed this thought in such an uncertain way. Even the 
three repetitions of the same thought in vv. 4, 8, and 16, is at least very 
strange. Finally, the idea of money-support, on which this view lays all 


1 Hofmann, however, takes these verses they are here interpreted by most expositors; 
(5-8) in a different way from that in which see farther on. 


CHAP. ivi 4-8; 161 


stress, is purely imported. These difficulties are too considerable for us to 
regard the first view as right in spite of them.!'—De Wette and Wiesinger 
are certainly right in regarding ver. 4 as contrasted with ver. 3, and ver. 5 
with ver. 4, as well as in thinking that the word yevovepévy sets forth the 
apostle’s mark of the évrwe ypa; but they are not justified in inferring 
that in ver. 4 he is speaking of a widow with relations who can take care 
of her. Why, in that case, should the apostle in ver. 5 have said regard- 
ing the évtw¢ y7pa, that she was to mpoopévew raic defcece Kai Taig rpocevyaic, 
and to do so vukrd¢ kai juépac, for all this is in no way opposed to what 
is said in ver.4? The zpoopévew leads us to suppose that the apostle was 
thinking of a widow who had not to care for relations —The right view 
will accordingly be this. After exhorting Timothy to honor the “ real ” 
widows (see on ver. 3), Paul distinguishes from these évtw¢ yfpaic, in the 
first place, the one who is not forsaken, but has children or grandchildren 
(not grown up); and he lays it on her as a duty not to neglect them. 
Then he describes the conduct of the “real” or forsaken widow, who has 
therefore no idvov oixov, showing what beseems her in her position in life 
as a Christian widow; so that he is contrasting the widow who works 
diligently for her own, and the lone widow who continues day and night 
in prayer. As opposed to the latter (or even to both), he mentions in ver. 
6 the yipa oxaratéoa, who is, however, to be considered as dead, because 
her conduct is in entire contradiction with her widowed state. Then 
there is a natural transition to the exhortation in ver. 7, which gives the 
apostle an opportunity for uttering, in ver. 8, a general maxim in order to 
impress once more on the widow with relations to care for, the exhorta- 
tion in ver. 4.—Ver. 4. téxva 7 éxyova] éxyova here (in connection with 
téxva) means the “grandchildren ” (réxva réxvwv, Hesychius).? In classical 
usage, 6 éxyovoc is usually the son (7 éxyovoc, the daughter), but also the 
grandson ; r@ éxyova denotes properly posterity.*—yavdavérwoar] The subject 
for this verb might be taken from the object in the protasis; but the form- 
ation of the sentence is more correct, if we take the subject of the protasis 
(rte yjpa) to be the subject here also. Tic y7#pa is then a collective idea, 
and takes the plural. Winer, too (p. 586 [E. T. p. 631]), supports this 
opinion.—zpérov] viz., before they give themselves up to the care of the 
church for them, with special reference to what follows: ypa katateyéoto, 
ver. 9, or better perhaps: “before she makes work for herself outside the 
house ” (Hofmann).—rév idsov oikov evoeBeiv] The term oixov likewise shows 
that he is speaking not of the things which the children are to do for 
- their widowed mother (or grandmother), but of the things which the 
widows as mothers are to do for the children; because the mother or 


1Van Oosterzee, in agreeing with the first 2 Luther translates it “ Neffen” (nephew), 
view, thinks it puzzling that this commentary which in Old German usage has the meaning 
gives the preference to the second. But he “descendant, grandchild ;’ comp. Gen. xxi. 
does not by this furnish anything towards 23; Job xviii. 19; Isa. xiv. 22. 
the solution of the.question, all the less that 3Comp. Wisd. xl. 15, xliv. 11, xlv. 13, xlvi. 


he has neglected to enter in any way upon the 22; synonymous with 70 o7eppa. 
- aifficulties surrounding the view he adopts. 


11 


162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


grandmother does not necessarily belong to the olxoc of a grown-up son 
or grandson, whereas the children not grown up necessarily belong to the 
olxog of the widowed mother. The meaning therefore is: they are not to 
forsake their house, i.e. their children or grandchildren. The term 
evoeBev is used to show that the house is a temple to whose service they 
are to devote themselves. Matthies inaccurately translates: “ practice 
piety in regard to one’s own house.” Oixov is not the accusative of refer- 
ence, but purely an objective accusative; comp. Acts xvii. 23, and Meyer 
on the passage. “To honor one’s house” is therefore equivalent to 
serving it with pious heart;! Luther’s translation: “rule-divinely,” is not 
to the point.—xai auoiBac arodiWédvac toig rpoyévore] According to the context, 
the meaning is this: the widows by the eisefeiv of their house, 7.¢. by 
their pious care for their children and grandchildren, are to recompense 
the love shown to themselves by their parents.?, Though this thought is 
peculiar, it is neither ingenious (de Wette) nor far-fetched (Wiesinger).— 
ayor87, in the N. T. araf Aeyéu32—oi mpéyovor, in contrast with the previous 
ra éxyova: the progenitors; in the N. T. only here and 2 Tim: i.3. It 
would be against usage to understand by it the (widowed) mother or 
grandmother who is still alive—roiro yap éote axddextov x.7.A.] comp. Ui. 3. 

Ver. 5 [XV c.] defines more precisely what widows the apostle specially 
exhorts Timothy to “ honor.” —7 62 dvtw¢ yhpa Kai pepovwpévy| Kal wEepovepévn 
is an epexegetical addition, defining 7 évtwe yypa as one with no relatives 
who take care of her, or of whom she takes care.—jArixev éxi Tov Oedv] 
The distinction between éArixévac éxi with the dative (iv. 10) and éArcx. éxi 
with accusative, is that in the former case the object furnishes the ground 
on which the hope rests; in the latter, the goal towards which it is directed. 
—xai rpoopuéver (strengthened form of pévec; tH mpooevyy mpookaprepeiv, Rom. 
xii. 12; Col. iv. 2) raic degoece x. Taig mproevyaic (comp. li. 1) vuKroc K. juépac 
(1 Thess. ii. 9). With this we may compare what Luke (ii. 37) says of 
Anna the prophetess. Matthies rightly remarks: “The idea of the 
genuine widow is explained not abstractly, but in concrete form, in actual 
realization, for which reason we: have the indicative used instead of the 
imperative or optative, as if a single representative of the whole class 
were described in living, personal form.” Hofmann will not allow this 
natural explanation to stand, because “the predicate which names a moral 
behavior does not accord with a subject denoting an outward state.” 
Taking 7 6é as a relative pronoun, he connects it with #Ariuev éri O., and 
regards kat mpoouevet (for xpoopuéver) as the apodosis, évtw¢ yipa Kai pepove- 
névn forming an affix to 7 dé Apart from the objection that the meaning 


1It is certainly correct that evoeBetv is used 
properly of conduct towards God, and then 
of conduct towards parents and persons of 
higher position; but itis not restricted to 
such use. In Euripides, Alcestis, 1151, it is 
used, e.g. of gevor. Hofmann well says: “If 
a widow turns her back on the house of her 
dead husband and of her relations, she 
neglects her nearest duty, and sins against 


the holiness of family ties.” 
2Chrysostom: amAGov éxetvor (oi mpdyover): 
ovK novvnOns avtois amodovvar Thy ayorByny: ev 
Tots exyovots auerBov: amodidov To odetAnua 
dca Tov Tratdwv. 
~ 8apo.B. arodidovat, Euripides, Orestes, 467. 
4Jerome (Ep. ad Gerontiam): quibus deus 
spes est, et omne opus oratio. 


CHAP. v. 5-8. 163 


advanced by Hofmann would have been expressed much more naturally 
by 7 6& évTwc yipa kK. meu., 7 WAnixev Eri Ocdv, Kai Tpoopeveit, the Meaning 
would be far from appropriate here. Besides, it gives no characteristic 
mark of the widow, for the hope which results in continual prayer is not 
peculiar to widows. Hofmann in his polemics does not observe that, in 
the apostle’s presupposition, she whose outward condition is more 
definitely described is a believing widow. When this is observed, we 
cannot deny the appropriateness of the reference (in Wiesinger) to 1 Cor. 
vii. 32 ff. 

Ver. 6. 'H 6% oxataddca] The opposite of the évtws yipa who has dedi- 
cated her life to piety. 27araiay, “revel, be wanton,” occurs elsewhere 
only in Jas. v. 5 (Wisd. xxi. 15). There is nothing to show that the apos- 
tle was here thinking of the squandering of the support received.—{éca 
téSvyxe] These words have been taken as exhorting Timothy to consider 
the wanton widow as dead, and not to support her; but this takes away 
all point from the words. The right meaning is obtained by comparing 
such passages as Eph. iv. 18, Rev. ii. 1, and others similar. While the 
widow who conducts herself as a widow should, lives in God, the wanton 
widow leads a life given up to the desires of the world, a life only in 
appearance, the very opposite of the true life. Theophylact: «av doxei 
Chv Kata THY aiodyTyY, TédvNKE KaTa TrEd[LA. 

Ver. 7. After describing briefly the conduct of the two classes of 
widows, the apostle continues: kai taita tapdyyeAde] tavta refers to what 
was said regarding widows. Timothy is, by way of exhortation, to 
announce to the church, therefore to the widows, what the apostle has 
written to him; sapayyeAde, comp. iv. 11—iva averidAnrro: dow] iva here 
gives the purpose (at 2 Thess. iil. 12 it stands after tapayyéArew Kk. Tapakare 
in a different sense). The subject of the clause is not the dependants 
(réxva kai éxyova, ver. 4) of the widows, much less they along with the 
widows (Heydenreich), or men and women (Grotius), but the widows 
spoken of in the preceding verses. 

Ver. 8. [XV d.] Et dé tue tév iWiwv Kat pddwora [ror] olKeiwy ob rpovost] 
“ But if any one does not take care for his relatives, and especially for those of 
his household ;” tic is here quite general in meaning, and this generality 
must in the first place be maintained. —r6v idiov and [rv] oiketwv are not 
neuters, but masculines. In the N. T., as a rule, oi idvoc are those in close 
fellowship and community with another. For instance, in John xiii. 1 
the relation of Christ to His disciples is thus named.  0i ids is here 
’ wider in meaning than oi oixeio, which is “those properly of the house- 
hold.” Hofmann thinks that, if the reading without the article be 
adopted, ~aAcora does not belong to the verb, but to oikeiwv = oixevorator, 
It is well known that in classic Greek the superlative is sometimes 
expressed by yd/.ora before the positive. But this usage is never found in 
the N. T.; and besides, here, where oixeioc refers to rdv idiov olxov (ver. 4), 
and is therefore equivalent to “member of the household or family,” the 
superlative oixeératroc is meaningless. To paraphrase it into “nearest 
- kinsman ofall” is purely arbitrary. At any rate, the article is by no 


164 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


means necessary before oixeiwy, since the idvoc and the oixeioe belong to one 
class; the intervening pddota makes no difference, although it lays 
special emphasis on the latter.—rjyv ciotw jpyyta] inasmuch as he does 
not do that to which faith, if it be a living faith, incites him; fides enim 
non tollit officia naturalia, sed perficit et firmat, Bengel.—xai éorw amiorov 
xeipwv] “Arcoroc here is not (as at 2 Cor. iv. 4; Tit. i. 15) “an enemy of 
Christ,” but ‘one who is not a Christian,” one who as such is incited by 
natural law to love his own children (comp. Matt. v. 46, 47).!. The refer- 
ence of this general thought varies according to the various interpreta- 
tions of ver.4. If rékva kai éxyova be taken there as the subject of 
pavdavétwoar, then it refers to the relation of these to the widowed mother 
or grandmother ; if the proper subject be ai yjpa, it refers naturally to 
the conduct of the widows. There is nothing to show that the apostle 
here was thinking of the mutual relation between the widows and their 
dependants (Matthies). Still less correct is it, with Hofmann, to wrench 
ver. 8 away from ver. 4, and to understand by ruc “the father of: a family,” 
“who at his death leaves wife and child unprovided for, when he might 
well have provided for them.” Such a sudden transition from what hith- 
erto has been the subject of discussion would be exceedingly strange ; nor 
is there any hint of it given by the verb zpovoeiv, which denotes care in 
general terms, not “‘care for those left behind at death.” Paul has hitherto 
been speaking of the conduct of widows, and only to that same subject 
can this verse be referred. 

Vv. 9 ff. From this point the apostle takes up a special class of widows, 
viz. those who had been placed by the church on a formal list, and who 
accordingly possessed a certain position of honor in the church. From 
ver. 16 it is to be inferred that it was the duty of the church to care for 
them so long as they lived, while from ver. 10 it appears that they had to 
perform for the church certain labors of love suited to them. The various 
views regarding them have already been given in the Introduction, 2 5; 
each has its special difficulties. Still Mosheim’s view is the most proba- 
ble; only what the apostle says of these widows does not justify us in 
transplanting into the apostolic age the ecclesiastical institution of the 
xipat (rpecBirepat, tpecBor.dec) in the same form as it had at a later date. 
We have here only the tendencies from which the institution was gradu- 
ally developed. Though the apostle takes it for granted that the church 
takes care of these widows, we cannot conclude that, as the older exposi- 
tors assume,* he means by the karateyéow their reception into the number 


1Calvin says on this: quod duabus de 
causis verum est, nam quo plus quisque in 
cognitione Dei profecit,eo minus habet ex- 
cusationis; .. . deinde hoe genus officii est, 
qnod natura ipsa dictat, sunt enim oropyat 
dvotkat. 

2With his view de Wette and Wiesinger 
agree; also Hofmann in substance. Even 
van Oosterzee refers us to Mosheim; but he 
wrongly identifies the widows here men- 


tioned with the deaconesses, whereas Mos- 
heim clearly distinguishes between them. 

Chrysostom in his commentary explains 
this passage as meaning, receiving in order 
to care for. In his Hom. 31, in div. N. T. loc., 
however, he interprets it of receiving into an 
ecclesiastical office, saying: xa@amep cio map- 
Oévwv Xopol, ovTw Kai xnp@v TO TaAaLoyv Hoav 
Xopol, kal ovx e&jv avTais amA@s eis Tas XNPAS 
eyypaderOar, 


CHAP. V. 9. 165 


of the widows to be supported by the church. Poor widows, like poor 
persons generally, would surely be supported by the church without being 
placed in the special class of the yjpac here meant.—Vv. 9, 10. yapa 
katareyéoSw] [XV e.] xaratéyerv (az. Aey. in N. T.), properly “select,” then 
“place upon a list,” used especially of the citizens chosen for service in 
war. yfpa is not the subject, but the predicate; Winer, p. 549[E. T. p. 
590]: “as widow let her be registered (enrolled) who is not under sixty ” 
(so, too, Wiesinger, Hofmann). The common translation is: “let a 
widow be chosen” (so de Wette, van Oosterzee, Plitt.)—pj éAattov érav 
éEnxovta yeyovvia] Leo and some others connect yeyovvia with what follows 
(Vulgate: quae fuerit unius viri uxor; so Luther). A comparison with 
iii. 2 shows that this is incorrect; besides, the construction itself demands 
the connection with what precedes. The genitive does not depend on 
yeyovvia (as Luke ii. 42: ore éyévero érav dddexa), but on éAarrov, and is 
equivalent to 7 ér7 é&jxovra.2—évoc¢ avdpoc yuv7, after the explanation given 
at iii. 2 of the corresponding expression: jwa¢ yuvaixde avfp, denotes the 
widow who has lived in sexual intercourse with no one but her lawfully 
wedded husband.—év épyoe xahoic waptupovuévy] paptepeiv in the N. T. has 
often the meaning: give one a good testimony; hence the passive is: 
possess a good testimony (uaptupiav Kadjv éxew, ii. 7). ’Ev here (as elsewhere 
in connection with verbs of similar meaning, see Wahl, s.v. év H. a.) gives 
the ground (of the good testimony); comp. Heb. xi. 2, for which in Heb. 
xi. 39 we have 6:4.—The épya kata (comp. ver. 25, vi. 18, and other pas- 
sages in the Pastoral Epistles) are not only works of benevolence, although 
to these chief attention is directed, but generally “good works.” —ei 
érexvorpodnaev] et cannot be joined immediately with xaraieyéodu, since the 
sense forbids us to consider this and the following clauses as co-ordinate 
with what precedes. It is rather attached to the év épy. Kad. uaprupovuévn, 
not, however, in such a way (as Heydenreich thinks) as to stand for dre 
(which is also not the case in Acts xxvi. 22, 23), but in such a way as to 
distribute the preceding idea into its single parts, and connect them with 
it in free fashion, “if namely.” Luther: “and who has a testimony of 
good works, as she has brought up children.”—On érekvorpégyoev (az. Aey.) 
Theodoret remarks: ov @péWae pdvov araitei, AAA Kai 7d evoeBa¢ Apépat. 
Wrong; the verb, not “rear” (van Oosterzee), but “nurse” (Luther), 
refers to the attention of love, as do the verbs that follow ; compare Acts 
xxii. 3: avateSpappévoc distinguished from reracdevuévoc. There is no reason 
for thinking here of strange children, since it may rightly be called a 
kadov épyov, if a mother does not entrust the rearing of her children to 
others, but takes care of them herself (in opposition to Leo and Wie- 
singer); the apostle is not thinking of the distinction between strange 
children and one’s own. Heydenreich, de Wette, and others think that 
Paul bases this exhortation on the ground that the rexvorpodia was part of 
the official duties of a y#pa, and that she must have practised them before; 


1Comp. Aristophanes, Acharn. 1629, Lysist. 2Comp. Demosthenes, in Timocrat. p. 481; 
14. 6. yéyova ovx EAatTov 7} TpiaKovTa ETH, 


166 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


but they are wrong, because in that case we could not but consider the 
Eevodoyelv x.t.A. as also the special duties of such widows.—ei égevoddxnoev] 
comp. iii. 2; Tit. i. 8 (gAégevoc); Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2. The word 
Eevodoxew (Euripides, Alc. 555) is in the N. T. amaf Acy.—ei aytwv rédac 
%vupev] comp. John xiii. 5 ff.; also Luke vii. 44. Wahl: pedum lotio 
(apud Judaeos) opus erat servile eademque apud eos in primis humani- 
tatis officiis hospiti praestandis ponebatur. The feet-washing is meant 
literally, and not merely as “a symbolic expression for the manifestations 
of self-denying love ” (first ed.); although Paul might at the same time be 
thinking of other services of lowly love.'—The ayo are not merely the 
gévo. (in Opposition to Wiesinger), but the Christians in general who came 
into the house as guests.—ei OArBopévorg éxfpxecev] Bengel arbitrarily limits 
the meaning of BABduevor, wishing to interpret it only of the poor; it is to 
be taken more generally as equivalent to “those in distress.” ’Exapxeiv in 
the N. T. only here and at ver. 16.—After naming several works of love in 
detail, the apostle adds more generally, in order to exhaust the év épy. xa. 
paptupeiotar: ei mavti épyw ayado éxyxoAovdyoe.2 Hence we must not here 
think of works of benevolence only, but take rav épyov in its entire mean- 
ing.—éraxodovdev (in the N. T. only here at ver. 24, at Mark xvi. 20, 
where it is absolute, and at 1 Pet. ii. 21, where it is joined with roe izveor) 
is mostly referred to persons; but we cannot therefore, with Schleier- 
macher, supply here avroic, ¢.e. OABouévore.® It stands here in the same 
sense as didxevv, Vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 15; Heb. xii. 14. Luther: “who has 
followed every good work.” * 

Ver. 11. Newrépac 62 yipac tapaitov] [XV f.] vewrépac is not here strictly 
comparative in reference to ver. 9 (Wiesinger: “widows under sixty 
years’); it is rather a positive, as in vy. 1, 2 (so, too, van Oosterzee).— 
rapaitov| in opposition to karadeyéo¥w, ver. 9 (and in opposition to riva in 
ver. 3); yet in such a way that, according to the analogy of the passages, 
iv. 7, 2 Tim. ii. 28, Tit. iii. 10, Heb. xii. 25, it denotes not only that they are 
to be omitted from the xaratéyeoda, but also that they are to be 
avoided personally. . Luther: “the young widows, however, get rid 
of.’® The reason for this injunctionis given by the apostle in the next 


1Theophylact: ei tas écxatas wmypecias 
Tois aylors avemaraxvvTws egeTEAECE. 

2This Hofmann wrongly disputes, wishing 
to lay the emphasis not on rav7i épy. ayaé., but 
on érnxodovence: “if there was any good to be 
done, she was to follow after it with all diligence, 
she was to make it her business.” 

3Bengel gives a peculiar reference to the 
word, which cannot be justified, saying: 
antistitum et virorum est bonis operibus 
pracire Tit. iii. 8, 14, mulierum, subsequi, 
adjuvando pro sua parte. : 

4 Hofmann is indeed not wrong in contend- 
ing against the view that ver. 15 points to the 
services which the widows here mentioned 
are to perform for the church. He says that 
this verse only tells that “she must have 


fulfilled the duties of a mother and a Christian 
housewife.” But the enumeration of all these 
duties indicates that as a church-widow she 
must be practised in the exercise of many 
services of love. 

5 Baur at an earlier period (Die Sog. Pastoral- 
briefe, p. 47) construed vewrepar xnpac gramma- 
tically together, and only—very arbitrarily, it 
is true—maintained that these xjpac are dis- 
tinguished from those in ver. 9 by being only 
virgins (and not évtws xjpac) bearing the 
name of xjpa. Later (Paulus, d. Ap. J. Chr. 
p. 497) he expressed the opinion that vewrépas 
and x7pas are not to be taken together, that 
the one is the subject rather, the other the 
predicate, and that the words accordingly 
have the sense: “Younger persons of the 


CHAP. V. 11. 167 


words : brav yap KataoTpyvidows Tov Xpiotov yapelv dé20vow] The meaning of 
the verb is variously given by expositors. Several take it as equivalent to 
“be voluptuous, lust after,” and so refer it to sexual relation, appealing to 
Rey. xviii. 9, where orpyav is used along with opveter. But this col- 
location does not prove that the verbs are related in sense, all the less that 
in the passage topveverv is not used literally. Even in Rev. xviii. 3, otpqvo¢ 
has not the meaning of sexual desire, but more generally of “ wantonness.” 
There is no justification, therefore, for de Wette’s translation : “ to feel 
sexual desire,” and that of Jerome :! quae fornicatae sunt. Others main- 
tain here the more general meaning of the word luxuriari (Wiesinger ; 
van Oosterzee also translates: “if they have become luxurious,” but ex- 
plains it of voluptuous desire, of the pruritus libidinosus). Since the word 
orpivoc also occurs in the sense of violent desire for something,’ Plitt 
explains orpyva@v as equivalent to “go in pursuit of the satisfaction of 
one’s desires,” but without saying what desires are here meant. In Pape, 
the word is explained as equivalent to “be insolent ” (otpjvog = “ inso- 
lence”).2 It will be most correct to adhere to the meaning “be luxuri- 
ous.” In all these various explanations the prefix kara is taken in the 
sense of hostile opposition, and the genitive tov Xpvorov regarded as the 
object to which those widows are opposed by their etpyvav. This refer- 
ence of xara is in entire accordance with Greek usage; comp. in the 
N. T. the words: xkaradvvacrebw, Kataxavydopar, KaTavapKdw, katacogilopac. 
Hofmann’s explanation completely diverges from these: “ After such 
widows have let the Saviour have their whole desire, after they have 
delighted in Him, they wish to marry.” For this interpretation of «aza- 
orpnvav Xpiorov, Hofmann appeals to Ps. xxxvii. 4, where the Hebrew 
min-y wyNnn (“rejoice in God, delight in God”) is translated in the 
LXX. by kataorpudav tov kupiov, But to this there are three objections— 
(1) This interpretation of xaraorpupav in a good sense is quite singular in 
nature; (2) cataorpygav cannot without proof be considered identical with 
karaotpyvav ; and (8) éray is explained simply by “after that,” whereas it 
properly means: “in case that, so soon as.” “Orav may indeed be some- 
times rendered by “after that;” but whereas the latter only expresses 
the relation of time, éravy is only used in such cases of an inner relation. 
In the present case it shows that the JéAew yapyew is something which has 
its ground or presupposed condition in the karaorpyyav of the widows. But 

how can it be imagined that delight in the Lord gives any ground what- 
ever for the desire of marriage ?—Besides, the whole context compels us 
to take xaracrp. in a bad sense.t—yayeiv séAovow] We must not overlook 


female sex do not receive into the list of the 
xjpa.” This only adds to the arbitrariness 
of the historian, the arbitrariness of the exe- 
gete. 


solentius et lasciviugs me gero adversum); 

similarly Theophylact: xa@umepnpavever Gat. 
4Eyen earlier expositors rejected the 

strange opinion which Heydenreich adopts, 


1 Ep. 123, al. 11,:ad Agerochiam al. Geron- 
tiam. 

2 Lycophr. 438, see Pape, 5, 8. v. 

8So, too, in Stephanus (xatacTpyyidw = in- 


that “orpyreav in its root-signification and 
origin mapa To oTepety Kat amoomayv Tas nvias 
means, cast off the reins, be or become 
unbridled.”—Quite as wrong is the inversion 


168 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


the fact that Paul does not say simply yayovow; he wishes here to bring 
out the direction in which their thoughts turn. If a widow received the 
honorable distinction of xataAéyeoUar, she had to recognize it as her duty 
to devote her life henceforth to her office, to her works of love for the 
church. These she must regard as her life-vocation. But in young wid- 
ows the worldly desire was roused only too easily, so that they put aside 
their life-vocation, and sought only their own satisfaction in forming a 
new marriage, thereby withdrawing themselves from the work for the 
church. Their thoughts were therefore turned to something else than the 
things to which their position in the church directed them.! 

Ver. 12. “Eyovoa kpiva, 671] Almost all expositors take 67: as introducing 
the object, so that what follows describes the xpiza which the widows 
have to suffer. There is variance only in the more precise definition of 
xpiua, Whether it is to be understood as the judgment of God (Wiesinger, 
van Oosterzee), orthe judgment of men (Wegscheider : “ they draw blame 
on themselves; ” Plitt: “they meet with reproof”), or the judgment of 
their own conscience (so in this commentary ; comp. iv. 2: Kexavtypiacpévor 
tv iiav ovveidyow). Hofmann takes ér as “ because,” as there is no article 
with xpiva: “they are liable to condemnation ;” but this makes the 
meaning of kpiva éyew too vague. Since theuse of the article in the N. 
T. is so wavering, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion. Plitt’s 
explanation may be taken as the most natural.—ére ray mpédryv riotw 
n0étnoav | tHv riotw abereivin Polybius (who often uses aéereiy by itself) is 
“fidem fallere, break a pledge.” This meaning has rightly been main- 
tained here by most.2 We cannot infer from this expression that any 
formal oath not to marry again was demanded when they were received 
_ into the number of church-widows; but it certainly does follow that the 
reception pledged the widows to devote their lives only to the service of 
the Lord. To this pledge they were unfaithful so soon as they began the 
behavior described in ver. 11. It is out of place here to appeal to such 
passages in the Fathers as testify that in later times the deaconesses had 
to vow that they would not marry. [pér7v does not stand for xpérepay, 
but is used by the apostle because the vow (tacit or expressed) to serve the 
Lord was taken at the beginning of their new position in life. Calvin 
wrongly takes the zpéry zioti¢ as the fides in baptismo data, referring the 
unfaithfulness to the desire to marry, which is defined more precisely by 
orav KaTaoTpyvidowor tT. Xp. 

Ver. 18. [XV g.] “Aya dé kat apyat pavOavovor repiepyduevar Tac oixiac] By 
far the greater number of expositors connect pav@avove. immediately with 
repepxoueva, “they learn to run about in houses” (Luther; so, too, de 


of thought which Heinrichs takes up, saying: 
clarius mentem expressisset Ap. inverso or- 
dine: orav yap yapueiv béAwowr, katagtpyvi@ce 
Tov Xpiorov; for yauety GéAovow is a con- 
sequence of the cataorpyriav, not vice versd. 
1It is to be noted that Paul does not speak 
of the @éAew yamety on the part of the widows 
as necessarily a xatagtpyviav tov Xpiorov. 


He is not uttering any general principle; he 
is dealing only with the actual cireumstances 
which were occurring among the widows 
under discussion. 

2So Chrysostom: mapéBynoav tas cuvOyKas; 
Augustine on Ps. lxxy.: primam fidem irri 
tam fecerunt; voverunt et non reddiderunt. 


CHAP. vy. 12-14. 169 


Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). But uwevlavew with the partic. does not 
mean learn; it is “ observe, perceive, remark ;”’ pavéavery, in the sense of 
learn (“accustom oneself’’), has always the infinitive (comp. ver. 4). Leo 
therefore takes it here as “be wont to:” but this sense only occurs in the 
preterite. Winer (pp. 325 f. [E. T. p. 347]) thinks it probable that apyai 
uavOdvovor are to be taken together, “ they learn idleness” (or “they learn 
to be lazy;”’ so in the second edition of this commentary; so, too, Hof- 
mann). It is in favor of this construction that the chief emphasis is laid 
on apyai; but no passage can be found confirming it. Besides, the posi- 
tion of apyai shows that it belongs to the subject. Bengel had taken 
refuge in supplying something explaining it : discunt quae domos obeundo 
discuntur, i. e. statum familiarum curiose explorant. Buttmann (pp. 260 
f. [E. T. 303 f.]) agrees with this explanation, only that he regards the 
supplied words; statum, etc., as too arbitrary and sweeping ; he observes : 
“what they learn repiepyouevac t. oix. 18 sufficiently indicated, not indeed 
grammatically, but in sense, by apyai, ¢Abapoi, reprépyor, AaAovoar Ta py SéovTa.” 
But if, as Buttmann thinks, we are to assume here an anacolouthon, it 
would be more natural to find the hint of what is to be supplied in the 
mepupxouevae T. oik., SO that the meaning would be: they learn repiepyduevac 
this very tepiépyeobar.—On the construction mepiepyduevar tac olkiac, Comp. 
Matt. iv. 23: mepupyev bAnv tv TadsAaiav.mov évor dé apyal. adAd Kai dAvapor 
«.7.A.] gAvapar, “ talkative” (Luther), only occurs here; the verb ¢Avapéw in 
3 John 10. Theophylact : repiodebovea: tag oikiac, ovdév GAN 7) Ta TabTIHE Ete ExeivyVY 
gépovot, kai Ta éxeivyc ele rabryv. Calvin: ex otio nascebatur curiositas, quae ipsa 
garrulitatis est mater—xai repiepyo., “ inquisitive,’ Luther (likewise az. 
Aey.; but in 2 Thess. ili. 11: pydév épyalopévove, aAAa repiepyaouévovc), forms 
a peculiar contrast to the preceding dpyai; Chrysostom: 6 yap ra éavrod pip 
pepyvov Ta érépov pEpiysvyoe. TavTWC.—Aahovoa Ta py Séovta] added to define 
further what precedes.—In these two verses Paul sets forth the danger of 
recelving young widows into the class of church-widows. It is not improb- 
able that there were definite instances, and these caused the apostle to 
speak in this general way. 

Ver. 14. Positive instructions regarding young widows.—fobdouar obv] 
Bobdouac does not express a wish merely (de Wette : “I hold it to be advis- 
able, desirable ”’), but a definite command ; comp. ii. 8.—oiv shows that this 
thought is a deduction from the one previous ; Leo: quae quum ita sint. 
—veuwrépac, sc. x#pac, not the virgins, as Baur thinks.—yapeiv] [XV h.] used 
also in 1 Cor. vii. 89 of the re-marriage of widows.—rexvoyoveiy (am. Acy., 
‘the substantive in ii. 15) does not include, according to the notion peculiar 
to himself, the rearing of children (van Oosterzee.) The apostle mentions 
single points; every one can supply the appropriate details for himself. 
Leo rightly says that the idea of rearing children is included rather in the 





1 Winer, indeed, quotes two passages, one Buttmann remarks on the first, that the 
from Plato, Euthyd.276b: ot apabets apa copot addition gopoi (which is quite meaningless) 
pavOavovor, and thé other from Dio Chr. 55. is rejected on ms. authority, and on the other 
558: 6 Swxpatys ote pev mais av éuavOave that it is of quite a different nature. In both 

“AOogd0s Thy tTcv maTpds TExVNV, aknKOamer. eases he is clearly right, 


170 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


next word.—oixodeororeiv (a7. Aey.; the substantive often occurs in the N. 
T.) denotes properly the work of the husband, and is equivalent to row 
oikov mpoioracta, ili. 4,12; here it is used of the wife, who necessarily has 
her share in ruling the household.—ydeuiav agopuyy didévar TH avtiKermévo 
Aowdopiag yapw] The last words : AowWopiac yap, are not to be taken with 
Botaoua (Mack: “I will... for the sake of the reproach which would 
otherwise be cast upon the church; ”’ the meaning is obviously the reverse 
of this, so soon as these words are placed in thought after yayeiv, since 
xapw never loses the sense of “for the sake of,” nor with 76 avticeévo 
(Leo: “inimica ad calumniandum parato”). They are to be connected 
With adopujv didéva, but notin such a way as to form a supplement to that 
phrase (de Wette, with the remark that this is indeed a strange construc- 
tion; also Wiesinger) ; the supplement should have been in the genitive, 
see 2 Cor. v.12. In short, Aodop. yap. only defines agopuyy didévac more 
precisely. A definite object is not to be supplied (Leo: occasionem se. 
ipsas seducendi praebere ; so, too, van Oosterzee, and in this commentary), 
but the interpretation is: “they are to afford the enemy no opportunity for 
slandering,” i. e. they are to abstain from everything which the enemy may 
use for slandering the church (not merely the widows); so, too, Hofmann 
on the whole. By the avrueiuevoc is meant either the devil (so most of the 
older commentators,! also Leo and Matthies; van Oosterzee uncertain) or 
the human enemy, the Jew and Gentile (so de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, 
Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong, however, in asserting that rod catava in 
ver. 15 is decisive against the first explanation, for aitod would have been 
used.—De Wette joins the last part of the clause to what precedes, in such 
@ way as to supply: “and in this way.” But there is no hint of this limit- 
ation. If we add it simply to what precedes, it is more natural to refer 
it to the whole conduct of the widows. $ 

Ver. 15. Reason for the injunction given: 767 yap twee éEetpdrnoav oricw 
tov catava.—riwvic, viz. “ widows;” é£erparyoav x.7.2.; comp. i. 6; dricw, 
comp. Acts v. 37, xx. 30: they have turned away, viz. from the Christian 
path of life, and have followed Satan. This does not necessarily mean a 
formal apostasy from Christianity, or a connection with the heretics; it 
may also mean yielding oneself up to an un-Christian, carnal life (Wiesin- 
ger). This arose from their not living in accordance with the rule laid 
down by the apostle—On #67, Bengel rightly remarks: particula provo- 
candi ad experientiam. De Wette is quite unjustified in asserting that 
Paul could not yet have had such an experience. 

Ver. 16. According to Heydenreich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oos- 
terzee, and other expositors, this verse is in substance a repetition of what 
was already said in vv. 4and 8; but if a right view of those verses be taken, 
there is not so much repetition—Hofmann wishes to separate ver. 16 from 
what precedes it, as he separates ver. 8 from the preceding words: “If in 
ver. 16 the apostle comes to speak of the case in which the support of a 

1Comp. Constit. Apost. iii. 2: vewrépacs SiaBdAov eréowor, Kat mayidas moAAas, Kat 


‘(xijpats) 5€ mera THY TOU mpwrov TEAEUTHY ovy- em.Ouuias voyTous. 
Kexwpic0w kai Oo devTEpos, iva MH Eis Kpiua TOW 


CHAP. Vv. 15-17. ee ass 
widow is not to fall a burden on the church, this has no reference to the 
honoring of widows.” There is as little ground for the one separation as 
for the other; for it is not to be supposed that xaradéyeofar in ver. 9 does 
not refer to the church’s support.—ei tv¢ miord¢ H mioTH Exer yApac] LXV 7.]so 
runs the Rec. (Tisch. 7). But the weightiest MSS. have the reading: ei tu¢ 
mioty Exec ynpac (Tisch. 8), which is decidedly to be preferred. The other 
is only a pointless correction, arising from the idea that the husband 
should be named along with the wife, and without considering that 7 is by 
no means suitable to the mention of both together, and that ri¢ tuor# must 
in any case be a Christian spouse. The reason why the wife and not the 
husband is named is, that on her was laid the duty of caring for the wid- 
ows belonging to the house. The éyev expresses the close connection of 
the widows with the particular family, a connection which may most 
naturally be supposed to be one of kin.’’ Erasmus translates it: si qua 
mater habet filiam viduam ; and de Wette, too, supposes that by widow 
here we are to understand the daughter, niece, etc., not the mother, aunt, 
etc. This limitation, however, is not contained in the expression itself. 
Had Paul thought of the relationship in this definite way, he would have 
expressed himself accordingly.—xai 4) Bapeiow 7 éxxAyjoia] let not a charge 
or burden be laid on the church by undertaking the support of such wid- 
ows.2—The next words give the reason : iva taic¢ évtwe yipace x.7.A.—On the 
train of thought in this section dealing with widows, Matthies rightly says: 
“ Complaints are made from the most various quarters regarding difficul- 
ties and inequalities, regarding want of order and clearness, regarding rep- 
etition and confusion in this section; but all this is, for the most part, 
founded on presuppositions which have no basis in fact.” We cannot but 
see that the train of thought is simple and natural, so soon as we observe 
that the chief point in the apostle’s mind in this section is the injunction 
regarding the xatatéyeoda: of the widows, and that in ver. 4 he is not speak- 
ing as in ver. 16 of widows to be cared for, but of those who have to care 
for the children or grandchildren belonging to them. 

Ver. 17. [On Vv. 17-20, see Note XVI., page 181.] In this and the 
following verses Paul instructs Timothy as to his behavior towards the 
presbyters.3—oi xaAdc mpoeotorec mpeoBirepor OuTAqe TiuAe aELcobaSwow| On Kaaae 
mpoeotarec, comp. ili. 4. The contrast to the elders “who superintend 
well,” is formed by of duaptdvorrec, ver. 20, not merely, as van Oosterzee 
thinks, “those who distinguish themselves Jess in their office ;” kaAac¢ does 
not denote a special distinction, but conduct worthy of the office.—Chrys- 
ostom explained riu4 by depareia kai Tov avayKaiwy xopyyia; de Wette trans- 


1Hofmann thinks that “here the case is 
supposed of a Christian woman haying widows 
in her house who, for a3 long or short period, 
are serviceable, helpful to her.” But, as a 
matter of course, such widows receive hire 
from those in whose service they work, and 
their support can therefore not be laid as a 
burden on the church. 

2The verb belongs to later Greek for the 


common Bapvverv; only the form BeBaphuac 
is Attic; comp. Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. II. p. 88. 
3Strange to say, Hofmann asserts that in 
ver. 17 mpeoBvrepor are not the presbyters, but 
“the men of advanced years, from whom the 
superintendents were chosen, and out of these 
the apostle exalts those who occupy this office 
worthily.” Only in ver. 19 does he think tha 
mpeaBurepos is used in the official sense. 


172 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


lates it directly by “reward.” True, tyu4 does occur in classic use in the 
sense of “ present, reward’; but the context by no means demands that 
meaning here (in opposition to de Wette). We must keep here to the 
general meaning of tw, “ honor,’—as in vi. 1 (comp. also ray, ver. 3), 
—although we may grant that the apostle was thinking particularly of the 
honor which the church was bound to show to their elders by presenting 
them with the means necessary for their support. It is quite erroneous 
to interpret tu of a maintenance definitely fixed. The adjective duxAje 
is taken by most expositors in the wider sense; but though in the use of 
dixdéoc it is not necessary to urge an accurate measure, still it is never 
equivalent to z/eiwv. It is certainly wrong to refer (see de Wette on the 
passage) the durAge here to the heavenly and earthly honor (Ambrosius), 
or to the distinction between -respect and reward (Matthies), or to the 
double portion of the first-born (Grotius), or to the double portion which, 
according to the Const. Apost. ii. 28, the presbyter received in the oblations 
(Heydenreich and Baur); all these references are arbitrary. The double 
honor here is that which comes to the presbyter on account of his office 
(not, as Hofmann thinks, on. account of his age’), and that which he 
obtains by filling his office well.— pddsora of komi@vtec év Adyw Kai didacKaria | 
[XVI a.] On korévtec, comp. iv. 10. Wiesinger says rightly: “we need 
not seek any special emphasis in komi@vrec: those who toil and moil in op- 
position to those who do not; xomidw is used, as elsewhere, of the teacher’s 
arduous vocation.’ —The preposition év denotes that Adyoc x. 6. is the sphere 
in which the work takes place (van Oosterzee).—/éy kai didackaria is not 
to be taken as an hendiadys. <Adéyoc is more general, didackadia more spe- 
cial. Special stress is laid here on the latter, because activity in teaching 
was of special importance as a bulwark against heresies. This addition 
does not prove that at the time when this epistle was composed there was 
a clear distinction between ruling and teaching presbyters (in opposition 
to de Wette and Baur). The apostle might quite well have used the 
same expressions, although the individual superintendents labored accord- 
ing to their gifts and free determination, not according to fixed rules. 
Ver. 18 furnishes the reason for the instruction given in ver. 16, a reason 
which attaches itself to the idea of komivrec. [XVI b.j—2éyer yap 4 ypagy’ 
Bovv adoovra ob giyudoerc] This expression is found in Deut. xxv. 4.  ¢iude, 
though often used figuratively in the N. T., stands here in its literal 
meaning. The whole passage, however, is taken figuratively, just as at 
1 Cor. ix. 9, where Paul handles it at greater length.2—To these words of 
Scripture the apostle further adds: kai aoc 6 épyatnce Tod puotod avrow] 
These words are not quoted from the O. T., for the passages to which 
attention has been directed at Lev. xix. 18 and Deut. xxiv. 14 run differ- 
ently ; but they are found in the N. T. at Luke x. 7 (similarly Matt. x. 10). 
Hence Baur and Plitt maintain that they are quoted from Luke.—The 
Aéyer 4 ypady does not, however, compel us so to refer the words; the 


1It mighteven be ayoungerman who filled t@v aAdywv Oo vomos, GAA’ Umép TOV veww wal 
the office of a presbyter. Adyov exovTwr. 
2Even Philo says (De Sacrif.): ov yap umép 


CHAP. v. 18-20. 173 
apostle simply adds to the words of Scripture a proverb (Christ, too, in 
the passage quoted seems to use the phrase as proverbial). So Calvin, 
also Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann.—The two sentences, according 
to the apostle’s meaning, express the same thought; hence it is not 
improbable that the second was added as an interpretation of the first. 

Ver. 19. The apostle now defines the proper conduct on Timothy’s part 
towards the presbyters who do.not superintend the church «a6, but 
expose themselves to blame, thereby doing hurt to their official influence. 
—Kara rpecButépov xatyyopiav uu rapadéxov] Chrysostom wrongly remarks 
on mpecButépov: ovxi Td akiwua, aAAd Fv yuxiav. Timothy is not to receive 
an accusation (aryyopia, Luke vi.7; John xviii. 29) in order to decide 
regarding it, éxrd¢ ei yu éxi dbo  tpidv papripwr. On the pleonasm, éxrd¢ 
et wy, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5, xv. 2. Paul is 
here referring manifestly to the Mosaic law, Deut. xix. 15 (LXX.: ézi 
otéuatog Ovo wapTipwv Kai emi oTduaTog TpL@v papTipwv oThoeTa Tav pHa); 
comp. Deut. xvii. 6 (éri duct papreow 7 éxi tpioi paprvor). It is a question 
whether he does so in the sense—corresponding with the law—of ordain- 
ing that Timothy is only to receive an accusation against a presbyter 
when supported by the testimony of two or three witnesses (so de Wette,! 
Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and in general most expositors); or whether 
here, as in Matt. xviii. 16, there is only a somewhat general reference to 
the law, and it is merely said that Timothy is to receive the accusation 
only when brought before him in presence of two or three witnesses? (so 
Hofmann; comp., too, Winer, p. 351 [E. T. p. 375]; Buttmann, p. 289 
[E. T. 336]; é2? uapripwv occurs also in the classics in the sense of “before 
witnesses ”). As he is not speaking here of a decision, but only of the 
reception of an accusation (in order that a decision may be made), and as 
the construction also is irregular, the second view may be adopted as the 
more probable one (different in the third edition of this commentary). 
Reference to the law is made in the N. T. also at Matt. xviii. 16; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 1, and Heb. x. 28; comp., too, John viii. 17. 

Ver. 20 contains a further instruction regarding his conduct toward the 
presbyters.—roi¢ ayaprdvovtacy does not refer to the members of the 
church in general (de Wette, Wiesinger), but to the presbyters (van Oos- 
terzee, Plitt, Hofmann),—those presbyters who, in their official work or 
general walk, do not conduct themselves in a manner worthy of their 
office. In such cases it does not matter whether a charge against them is 
brought before Timothy or not.2—évériov ravtwv teyyve] The most natural 
reference of ravtec also is to the presbyters. [XVI ¢.] It would clearly be 
too much to expect that Timothy should punish ail sinners before the 


1De Wette’s question, whether Timothy 
was not to observe this precept of justice in 
the case of accusations against others, is not 
to the point. Timothy was not appointed 
judge over all matters of private dispute. 
2The suitability of such a precept is mani- 
_fest when we consider the position which 
Timothy had to take up towards the presby- 


ters; comp. on this Hofmann. 

3 Neither the present (a4uaptavovtas) nor the 
lack of 8€ disproves this view. The aorist 
(auapricavtas) would have pointed to some 
earlier incident, and é€ would be necessary 
only if the apostle had had clearly in mind 
the contrast to the caA@s mpoeaTates mpeaBve 
tTepot mentioned in ver. 17. 


174 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


whole church (comp. Matt. xviii. 15-17); that would be unsuitable, even 
in the case of presbyters who had sinned. On ééyyevv, “ censure,” comp. 
Luke iii. 19; Tit. i. 18, ii. 15.—iva kai of Aorroi H6Bov Exwor] “oi Aovroi may 
be only the rest of the same class to which the auapravorres belong,” 
Hofmann. 

Ver. 21. [On Vv. 21-25, see Note XVII., pages 181, 182.] The apostle 
concludes the section, on the proper conduct towards the presbyters, with 
a solemn adjuration to observe the precepts given.—d:ayapripoya évarvov Tov 
Ocov Kai Xpiotov "Iyoov Kai Tov éxdeKTOv ayyéAwv] In the N. T. the verb 
Siapapropecdac means “testify” (so Acts vill. 25, x. 42, xviii. 5, etc.) and 
“ adjure,’ and in the latter sense often serves to strengthen an exhortation 
(Luke xvi. 28; Acts ii. 40; 1 Thess. iv. 6; 2 Tim. ii. 14, etc.); so, too, here. 
The addition kai rv éxAexrov ayyédwv is explained from the idea that the 
throne of God is surrounded by angels as His servants. The reference to 
the last judgment is wrong, as in Bengel (with whom Wiesinger and van 
Oosterzee agree): repraesentat Timotheo judicium extremum, in quo 
Deus revelabitur et Christus cum angelis coram conspicietur. Paul is 
appealing, not to something future, but to something present.—The éxAexrav 
cannot be taken as a genitive dependent on rv ayyéAwv (= “before the 
angels of the elect, 7. e. believers,” so Hofmann); éxAexrov, as its position 
between the article and the substantive shows, is an adjective belonging 
to ayyéAwv.! It does not distinguish higher angels from lower,’ nor the good 
from the bad, nor the guardian angels of Timothy and the Ephesian 
church (Mosheim) from all others, nor the angels in general from earthly 
beings; it is to be taken simply as an epitheton ornans. The angels as 
such are éxAexrot @cov, Whom God has chosen as the objects of His love ; 
comp. 1 Pet. ii. 4, where ékAexrée is synonymous with évrioc. Wiesinger 
rightly remarks that éxdexroi is to be taken as a general epithet of all 
angels, like dy: ayy., ayy. ¢wréc, and the like. It is added in order to give 
greater solemnity to the form of adjuration.3—iva raira gvAdenc] [XVII a.] 
ravra does not refer to “ everything that has been said to Timothy regarding 
his conduct towards each class” (Hofmann), but to what was said in vy. 17- 
20 regarding the presbyters. The solemn adjuration is due to the import- 
ance which the office of presbyter had for the church. De Wette, Wiesinger, 
van Oosterzee refer it only to ver. 20; but this is contradicted by the close 
connection of the verse with what precedes.—Xwpi¢ mpoxpiparoc, pndév K.7.A.] 
mpoxpiua, “ prejudice,” in a favorable as well as an unfavorable sense. 


1Cases occur in which the genitive of a 
substantive is governed by a substantive like- 
wise in the genitive (e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 4); cases, 
too, in which the dependent genitive pre- 
cedes the substantive governing it (e.g. Rom. 
xi. 13); but none in which the genitive of a 
substantive—in form adjectival—governed by 
a substantive in the genitive, stands between 
it and the article belonging to it. 

2Baur explains the expression from the 
gnostic idea of angels who stand in special 
connection with the Redeemer. Irenaeus, i. 


4.5: ot nAwwKores avtov (rod SwrHpos) ayyeAor, 
Vii. 1: ot wepi Tov Swrnpa ayyedor; iv. 5: ot 
ayyeAot ot pet’ avTod ot Sopuypopor.—But apart 
from other reasons, the expression here used 
is much too indefinite to be referred to that 
idea. Van Oosterzee takes éxAexrot to denote 
the highest orders of angels, but does not 


_prove that the word is used in such a way. 


3Comp. with it the form in Josephus, where 
(Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 14) in Agrippa’s address to 
the Jews we have: paptvpoua &’ éyo weév 
UM@V TA GyLAa Kal TOUS Lépous ayyéAous TOD Beod. 


CHAP. V. 21, 22. 175 
Several expositors take it here in an unfavorable sense, so that the next 
words : pydév roy Kata tpdokAcow, form a contrast to ywpi¢ mpoxpipartog (so 
in this commentary). But as there is nothing to indicate a contrast, it is 
better to take the second member as defining the first more precisely: 
“without prejudice, doing nothing by favor.”—Hofmann translates mpoxpyna , 
by “preference” (so Leo); but Wiesinger has already remarked that this 
meaning cannot be proved. If xpéx«Ayow were to be taken as the original 
reading, it would have to be explained as Theophylact explains it: zpocka- 
heitai ce TO év pépoc cig TO BonSeiv abTO pH Toivuv womjone Kata THY Eketvov Tpdo- 
kAnjow, which nevertheless is still an artificial interpretation.? 

Ver. 22. The exhortation in this verse: yeipac tayéwe pndevi ércrider, is 
not defined further. [XVII 6.] In the N. T. the laying on of hands is 
mentioned on various occasions; thus specially in healing the sick 
(whether by Christ or His disciples), in bestowing the divine blessing 
(Matt. xix. 13, 15), in imparting the Holy Spirit (Acts vii. 17), in appoint- 
ing to a definite ecclesiastical office (Acts vi. 6), in setting apart for special 
church work (Acts xiii. 3). It has been thought that Paul has here in 
mind the laying on of hands which was done at the readmission of 
excommunicated persons (de Wette, Wiesinger); but there is no trace in 
the N. T. of the existence of this custom in apostolic times. It is more 
natural to refer it to the ordination, whether of a presbyter or deacon 
(besides the older expositors, Mosheim, Otto, van Oosterzee,’ Plitt, and 
others); but in that case ver. 22 should have come before ver. 21. Hof- 
mann thinks that it is used of the appointment to a church office; but of 
this there is no hint in the context. It will be most correct to take the 
exhortation quite generally, so that the meaning is, Timothy is to lay hands 
tayéwe, t.e. “in over-hasty fashion,” on no one—whatever the occasion 
may be. The reason why not, is given in the next words: pdé Kowdver 
duaptiae addotpiacc. The aAdaorpia: duaptiac are not, as Hofmann thinks, the 
sins of those who are hasty in the laying on of hands, but the sins of 
those on whom hands are too hastily laid. He who thoughtlessly lays 
hands on the unworthy, thereby declaring them worthy of the divine 
blessing, makes himself a sharer in their sins. Against this Timothy is to 
guard; he is rather to observe what Paul expresses by saying: oeavrév 
ayvov tipe. This exhortation is in itself quite general, but it stands here 
in close relation to the foregoing warning. Timothy is to keep himself 
pure (ayvé¢ as in iy. 12, not in the special meaning “ chaste’), particularly 
in not making himself a partaker of others’ sins by laying hands on them 
too hastily. This reference, declared by van Oosterzee to be the only one 
possible, is wrongly denied by de Wette and Wiesinger. Heinrichs and 
others err in regarding the apostle’s exhortation as “a prohibition against 
intercourse with wicked men.” [XVII c.] 


1Reiche is wrong in saying: Huther et 
Matthies, quin lectionem hane (mpogKAnovv) 
absurdam Lachmanni auctoritate sequantur, 
parum abesse videntur. The reading mpoo- 
Aco is distinctly enough preferred by Mat- 


thies, as well as in this commentary, in spite 
of the weight allowed to the important 
authorities that testify for the other reading. 

2Van Oosterzee wrongly thinks that vv. 24, 
25, are in favor of this explanation; there is 


176 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Ver. 23. EXVIT d.] Myxérc idporérer «.r.2.] OF course the apostle does 
not mean to forbid Timothy to drink water at all, but only urges him not 
to avoid wine altogether. idpororeiv does not exactly mean “ drink water,” 
but: “ be a water-drinker,” and is only used of a man who makes water his 
special and exclusive drink; see Winer, p. 464 [E. T. p. 498]. The reason 
of Timothy’s abstinence from wine is not that he, after the fashion of the 
Essenes, regarded its enjoyment as something not permitted to him, nor 
that he subjected himself to an asceticism wrong in nature (Wiesinger) ; 
but that, in his zeal for moderation (which is a part of the dyveia), and in 
order to set an example against excess, he avoided wine, whereby, how- 
ever, he might appear to favor a false asceticism (so, too, van Oosterzee). 
If this be kept in view, we cannot overlook the connection of the verse 
with what precedes. De Wette rightly remarks (following Estius, Grotius, 
and others) that this exhortation contains a limitation of the previous 
exhortation, and at the same time a contrast to exaggerated asceticism. 
As areason for Timothy’s enjoying some wine, Paul adduces his sickliness. 
It does not, however, follow, as Matthies thinks, that the apostle made 
this exhortation only out of concern for Timothy’s health. Had that been 
the case, we cannot but hold, with Schleiermacher, that the apostle here 
descends to particulars which strangely interrupt the train of thought, 
since ver. 24 is clearly attached again to ver. 22. 

Ver. 24. [XVII e.] This and the following verse, in close relation to one 
another, as écattw¢ shows, express a truth quite general, which the context 
defines more precisely.—riwév avOpdrov ai duaptiac tpddnroi eit] mpddydo¢ 
does not mean “ formerly manifest,”! but “manifest before all eyes.’”? 
Comp. Heb. vii. 14 (see Delitzsch, comment. on the passage) ; Judith viii. 
29; 2 Mace. ili. 17, xiv. 39.3—zxpodyovoa eic¢ kpiow is here, as often, intransi- 
tive (opp. axoAovdery, comp. Matt. xxi. 9), equivalent to “precede.” Accord- 
ing to the sense, we must supply as the dative of more precise definition : 
“those who have committed the sins.”—eic xpiow, equivalent to “to judg- 
ment.” The meaning therefore is: some men are in such a condition 
that their sins are not only made manifest by the xp/ovc, but they are already 
notorious beforehand; they precede to judgment those who have practiced 
them, and thus show in anticipation the result of the judgment.—The 
next clause forms the contrast to this thought: riot 62 Kat éraxodovdovew} 
éxaxodovdeiv corresponds to the rpodyer, and ddyAoc naturally suggests 
itself in contrast with xpdédy20. The meaning is: Some men are in such 
a condition that—in regard to the xp/au—their sins follow them, 7. e. that 
their sins are only made manifest by their coming to judgment; the 
judgment alone makes their sins manifest—Mack imports arbitrary 
references by his interpretation : “they follow hard on their heels, so that 
they cannot remain unknown, except to those hasty and careless in observ- 
ing.”—De Wette is right in his explanation: “ with some they are only 


in them no hint of any reference to ordina- 2Chrysostom, Theodoret, de Wette, Wies+ 
tion. inger, Hofmann, and others. 
- 1Calvin, Beza, Leo, Mack, Matthies, and 8So also in the classics (conap. the Lati» 


others. . propalam.) 


CHAP. Vv. 23-25. 177 


known afterwards;” but he is wrong in his additional remark: “when 
they have gone on a longer or shorter distance ;” on this point there is 
clearly nothing said here.—As the verse has the appearance of an aphorism, 
xpiowe is to be taken quite generally; but since the apostie utters this 
general sentence in reference to ver. 22, it is to warn Timothy that he is 
to lay hands on no man rashly, etc., without a kpiovg 2. e. without subject- 
ing him to a judgment whereby sins, usually hidden, may become mani- 
fest—As there is no good ground for interpreting ver. 22 of ordination, it 
is wrong to take «pice here as identical with doxpagew, ii. 10. For de 
Wette’s explanation also: “the ecclesiastical decision of the moral censor,” 
there is no sufficient ground. There is as little ground for the opinion of 
some expositors (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann) who interpret the 
kpioe of the judgment of God, and find the thought expressed that in the 
divine judgment all sins alike, whether manifest before or hidden, shall 
come to light. Wiesinger further assumes that thereby the exhortation 
‘to Timothy to beware of others’ sins as of his own, is strengthened. But, 
on the one hand, it is arbitrary to supply Oeod with xpiow :+ on the other 
hand, the apostle is not discussing various sins, but the sins of various 
men. Further, it is wrong to obscure the meaning of éraxoAovdover, and 
to put in its place the thought, “they are hidden.” Besides, we cannot 
see how the thought thus taken could serve Timothy as a standard for his 
conduct, for those sins which are only made manifest by the last judgment 
must remain hidden to Timothy, in which case he could not be reproved 
for laying hands on those who had committed such sins? To the opinion 
that Paul wished to strengthen his exhortation to Timothy by alluding to 
the last judgment there is this objection, that the only reason for drawing 
a distinction between manifest and hidden sins, would have been a suspi- 
cion on Paul’s part that Timothy was guilty of secret sins. But how 
could he have such a suspicion, and how can this interpretation agree 
with tiv avdpdrev and tuoi dé?—The xpiowe here mentioned is therefore 
not the divine judgment, but a trial which Timothy must hold, lest the 
thing of which he is warned in ver. 22 should happen (so, too, Plitt). 

Ver. 25 supplements ver. 24, the distinction between manifest and 
hidden being applied to good works.—ocaitw¢ kai ra Epya Ta Kaha mpddnAa | 
It may be supposed from what precedes that rev av3porev is to be 
supplied here. But it is improbable that Paul was thinking definitely of 
this, otherwise the clause following would have received another form. Hof- 
mann maintains that the Ree. 7péd724 éorw is the original reading, taking 
the words dsabrwe . . . Kaad as a complete clause, and explaining 7pédn4 
éotw by: “there are manifest (ones).” This purely arbitrary view needs 
no refutation. The assertion that the apostle could not say that the good 


1]It is certainly correct to say that xptots, 2This objection does not affect Hofmann’s 
even without @cod, sometimes in the N. T. interpretation, for he—unjustifiably—sepa- 
denotes the judgment of God; but this only rates vy. 24, 25 from what precedes, and 
takes place when the context gives clear in- wishes to regard them as introductory ta 


dication of it, as in Jas. ii. 13, which is not — what follows. 
the case here. 


12 


178 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 


works were manifest, is contradicted by the addition of the necessary 
restriction in the next words.—xai ta dAAwe éyovra is not to be referred to 
kata, but to mpédy2a: the good works with which it is different, 2. e. which 
are not mpédnAa.—xpuBgvar ov dbvavrac] “ can, however, not remain contin- 
ually hidden;” they will likewise become manifest on a careful xpiovc. 
Ver. 24 was a warning against showing favor too hastily; this verse is a 
warning against condemning too hastily. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XV. Vv. 3-16. 


(a) After the general directions respecting the treatment of older and younger 
members of the churches, both men and women, special suggestions are given 
with reference to widows. The primary object of these suggestions seems to be 
to determine what widows shall be supported by the church. It will be observed 
that this is the first and main point which is presented. The widows who are 
really such (vTw¢) are those who have no children or grandchildren to provide for 
them, who are feyovwuévar, who are sixty years of age and, therefore, are not likely 
to marry again. Unless they are in such circumstances, their own friends are to 
support them, that the church may be able to give all its help to those who pecu- 
liarly need it. It will, also, be observed that the other points specified have 
reference to character and conduct in past life, or in their present widowhood, 
which have rendered them worthy objects of the church’s care. Comp. what is 
found in ver. 9, and ver. 5. Nothing is said of any official duties or official char- 
acter as appertaining to these widows. The word katadeyéodw simply means to 
be entered upon a list, and its meaning is fully answered by the recording on a 
list of persons who should be supported by the congregation out of the common 
funds. Is it certain, even, that the verb must have so definite a meaning as this? 
The arguments urged in favor of a certain official character as belonging to them 
are the following: (1) that it is required that they should be sixty years of age. 
If it were a mere matter of support, it is said that widows under this age might be 
destitute. But it is of permanent pensionaries of the church that the Apostle is here 
speaking, and that such a limit of age should be required for them is not surprising. 
(2) That such a widow, it is said, must have been the wife of only one hus- 
band, i.e. should not have been twice’ married. This, it is claimed, could hardly 
be made an essential condition to her being supported by the church. This argu- 
ment will, of course, be worthy of consideration, only in case the meaning of the 
phrase is the one mentioned. If, on the other hand, the words mean that there 
must have been no violation, in any degree, of the marriage relation, the condi- 
tion might well be deemed a necessary one. But even if the former sense is correct 
—as, in all probability, it is—there might easily have been, at that period, sufficient 
_ reasons for making a second marriage a disqualification for admission into the 
number of those who were to be permanent pensionaries of the church; as there 
were for making it such in the case of persons who might be thought of, on other 
grounds, as candidates for the office of éricxoroc. Such a condition would be as 
unlikely to be mentioned, at the present day, with reference to the latter position 
as the former. (3) That ver. 10 implies that the persons had been in possession 
of property; and, accordingly, that persons of this class, not those who had been 


NOTES. 179 


always poor, would by this understanding of the passage, be allowed support. 
This argument, however, depends on inferences from ver. 10, which are not at all 
necessary. (4) That ver. 12 implies a pledge to remain a widow, and this indi- 
cates an order or official class. This is the strongest of the points urged. But it 
‘is to be observed: 1, that miorw does not necessarily mean a pledge; 2, that the 
words connected with the 7iorvv clause involve something more than the mere dis- 
position to marry a second time ;—kataorpyviaowor can scarcely have less force than 
oraradooa of ver. 6, which denotes wantonness, living riotously (Ell.), giving one- 
self to pleasure (R. V.) ;—it is something which causes one to be dead while still 
living; 3, that immediately after the allusion to these younger widows who thus 
become wanton against Christ, the writer refers to the point that widows, who 
have friends to aid them, should not be supported by the church, precisely as he 
makes the same statement after alluding to the elder widows who give themselves 
te pleasure ;—the question of support by the church is the prominent question in 
mind, and everything apparently turns upon this point; 4, that, as it is declared, 
in ver. 8, that the person who does not provide for his family denies the faith, it 
is not strange if it is here declared, that those who marry through becoming 
wanton against Christ, reject their first faith. The evidence in this passage of an 
ecclesiastical order of widows, with vows of perpetual widowhood, is, to say the 
least, very uncertain, and an argument against the Pauline authorship of the epis- 
tle as connected with any late development of such an institution rests on very 
precarious foundations. 

(b) The question as to what is the subject of vavdavérwoav (ver. 4)—whether 
the widows or the children—is much disputed. But the following considerations 
seem decisive in favor of the latter: 1, The 16th verse, the correspondence of 
which with vv. 4,8 can hardly be doubtful, clearly refers to the supporting of 
widows by relatives. 2. The only natural interpretation of ayouBac atodidvac Toi¢ 
mpoydvore of ver. 4, is that which understands the words as requiring of children 
that they should make return to their parents for what the parents had done for 
them. 3. The connection of ver. 5 with ver. 4 indicates that jeuoveuévn refers to 
a bereft or solitary state in which the widow is left without help and care from 
others, rather than to a condition in which she has no one as the object of her 
care. 4. The contrast between the widows mentioned in ver. 4 and the “ widows 
indeed ” of ver. 3, as connected with the similar contrast which evidently relates 
to the matter of support in ver. 16, renders it altogether probable that that which 
(to the Apostle’s thought as here presented) made the widow an évTwe y#pa, was 
the fact that she had no children to support her. 5. It may be added that, while 
Tic xnpa may be regarded as a collective idea, and thus may be taken as a plural 
subject, the use of the plural verb pavdavétwoar points more naturally to the plural 
nouns téxva and éxyova, The objections to this view, which are presented by 
Huther, are not of special weight. He urges the use of rév idvov olkov and rToic¢ 
mpoydvorg instead of ait#v and airy. But this is accounted for very simply and 
easily, by the desire of the writer to put the sentence in a general form; comp. - 
ver. 8. He urges, secondly, that of xpéyovor means progenitors, and thus seems 
inappropriate as referring to parents. But its use may be explained as suggested 
by éxyova, and, as Alf. says, it was the only word which would include both mother 
and grandmother. He argues, thirdly, that the expression réxva Zye makes the 
children dependent on the mother (iii. 4; Tit. i. 6), and that it is an arbitrary sup- 
position to suppose that grown-up children only are here alluded to. This argu- 


18U THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


ment has no force, if the indications of the context show that the writer has in 
mind mature children, who can care for their parents. What the age of the 
children is, and whether they are regarded as independent of parents or depend- 
ent on them, must be determined, in all such cases, by the thought of the author 
at the time. Finally, the objection which he finds in 7pétov seems to have no 
foundation, for, in such a sentence, first is often used as denoting before proceeding to 
take another course,—here, before leaving her to the care of the church. De W., 
Wies., Ell., Alf, Fairb., Plumptre, Bib. Comm., v. Oost., and others regard the 
children as the subject of pavdavérwoav, Luther, Calv., Holtzm., Hofm., and 
some others agree with Huther in making the widows the subject.—(c) Ver. 5 is 
sometimes taken as indicating duties which belonged to the ecclesiastical widow. 
The verse, however, is not put in the form which would directly point to this, and 
it may be satisfactorily and more simply explained as designating the general 
characteristics of the widow who is “e“xovwuéevy, and who is to be honored as 6vTw¢ 
anpa. The words tavta mapayyeAde of ver.7 probably refer to vv. 5, 6.—(d) Ver. 
8, which is expressed in a general form, favors the reference of the wavdavérwoav 
of ver. 4 to the children and grandchildren—independently of other considera- 
tions—for the reason that cases were not unlikely to occur in which they would be 
disposed to neglect the widow and leave her to the care of the church, whereas cases 
in which a widowed mother would leave her young children, that she might be- 
come an ecclesiastical widow, were less likely to suggest themselves to the writer’s 
mind. The meaning of aziotov is unbeliever (R. V.), not infidel (A. V.). The per- 
son thus neglecting his own family was worse than the ordinary heathen, whom 
natural affection impelled to provide for his own.—(e) y#pa of ver. 9 is regarded 
by Winer and most commentators as a predicate, and not improbably it is so. So 
R. V. That this must necessarily be the case, however, may be questioned.—( f ) 
The rejection of the younger widows (ver. 11) is evidently founded on the fact 
that they are likely to desire to marry, and liable to do so because of a disposition 
to turn away from Christ to the pleasures and worldliness of an unspiritual life. 
That persons who had been placed among the number of those who were to 
receive support from the church as permanent pensionaries, on the ground of their 
solitary and bereft condition, should be thus turning aside, was likely to be a cause 
of scandal and evil, and the danger of it was to be avoided. It involved a rejec- 
tion or abandonment of their first faith—comp. above, hath denied the faith—or of a 
pledge which they had given. If the latter meaning is to be assigned to 7iotTvy, the 
conclusion does not necessarily follow (as Huther also affirms), that there was any 
formal vow not to marry again. It is to be observed, also, as Huther says in his 
footnote, that Paul does not represent the desire to marry, in the case of the 
younger widows, as necessarily a Kataotpyviav tov Xpiorov. If there was any 
“order” of widows, everything in the passage shows that it had as little as possi- 
ble of ecclesiastical development.—(g) The construction of ver. 13 is difficult, but, 
on the whole, the supplying of elvaz, and making apyai predicate to this infinitive, 
seems to be the least objectionable way of explaining the sentence. The explan- 
ation given by Holtzm. (comp. Words.) which takes “av, absolutely, and contrasts 
learning by going about from house to house with learning from their husbands 
at home (ii. 11), must be regarded as quite improbable-—(h) The ground of the 
direction given that the younger widows should marry, is one which is in the gen- 
eral line of thought in the passage ;—Aovdopiac is the reproach which conduct such 
as that indicated in the preceding verses might occasion, and éeTpamyoav «,7.A, 


NOTES. 181 


corresponds closely with xataotpyvidowow x.t.A, of ver. 11—(i) That to7/, and not 
mLoTO¢ ij TeoT?H, is the true text in ver. 16 is to be believed, because it is given by the 
best authorities and because it is the more difficult reading. The use of the fem- 
inine is connected, possibly, with the fact that, since ver. 8, the discourse has been 
wholly about women—possibly, however, with the fact alluded to by Huther, that 
the duty specified would fall especially upon the woman. The reading with both 
masc. and fem. would have seemed antecedently more natural. 


XVI. Vv. 17-20. 


(a) The indications of ver. 17 are that there were presbyters who, in addition 
to the work of presiding, devoted themselves to teaching and preaching. But 
that there was a marked division between two classes of elders—ruling and teach- 
ing elders—is neither stated, nor rendered probable, by this verse. The words 
of Rom. xii. 7 ff. and 1 Cor. xii. 28 may, probably, point to a combination of 
these gifts as often belonging to preachers and teachers, but, neither there nor 
here, is there anything to show established ecclesiastical orders. The so-called 
ruling elders, or presiding elders, of different modern branches of the church 
have certainly no connection with what the Apostle is here speaking of. The 
persons to whom he alludes were neither lay-elders, nor presbyters presiding over 
a district or over a body of presbyters or churches in a district. They were 
presiding and teaching presbyters of single churches, étickoroe in the N. T. 
sense of that word.—(b) The 18th verse makes it evident that, if the word riuuje 
(ver. 17) does not distinctly mean reward or remuneration, this idea was prominent 
in the Apostle’s mind as connected with the honor of which these presbyters 
were to be accounted worthy. The quotation from the O. T. in the first clause 
as united with the words agvo¢ «.7.A, of the second, and as used and applied in 
1 Cor. ix. 9, scarcely admits of any other explanation. The second clause of the 
verse is not found in the O. T., and nothing sufficiently near to it in form of ex- 
pression is there discoverable to justify the application to this clause of 7 ypad@7 
Aéyec in the ordinary N. T. sense of that phrase. It is found, however, in Luke 
x.7. Does the union of the two clauses by kai prove that ypad7 is here used by 
the writer as covering the N. T.,as well as the O. T.? The most that can be 
fairly affirmed is, that it may indicate such a use, but not that it cannot be 
otherwise. This verse does not, therefore, afford a decisive argument to prove 
a later date for the epistle than the end of Paul’s life; nor can it be regarded as 
an argument overbalancing strong evidences which may be discovered on the 
other side. The explanation given by Huther is a possible, and even a not 
improbable one; and this notwithstanding the fact, which Holtzm. alleges, that it 
is not in accordance with N. T. usage to unite a Scriptural and a mere proverbial 
statement in this way.—(c) 7avTwv of ver. 20 is explained by Huther as referring 
to the presbyters. This reference, however, is certainly not necessary, and it seems 
quite doubtful, since the tavTwv has no limiting word added to it. Ell. would, for 
a similar reason, give a general sense to Tove duaptdavovtac; but the sequence of 
the verses more naturally suggests the supply zpeoBurépove with this participle, 
as also the understanding of oi Aovroi as meaning the rest of the presbyters. 


XVII. Vv. 21-25. 


(a) The reference of tavra gv2dEy¢ of ver. 21 may be to vy. 17-20, as Huther 
supposes, but is more probably to be limited to vy. 19, 20. The explanation given 


182 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


by Huther of tpoxpiaroc, on the other hand, is better than that of other writers, 
who give it an unfavorable sense; because the word, in itself, does not necessarily 
have that sense, and because it seems improbable that the two opposite sides 
would be presented without some separating particle or, at least, a kai. The 
second phrase follows the first as if explanatory—(b) The question as to what 
imposition of hands is referred to in ver. 22 cannot be confidently answered. The 
indefinite and general expression, in itself, is favorable to Huther’s view. On 
the whole, however, the connection must be regarded as favoring the application 
of the words to the ordaining of presbyters. Ell. agrees with de W. and Wiesin- 
ger in-referring the words to the laying on of hands at the absolution of penitents 
and their re-admission to church-fellowship.—(c) The second and third clauses 
of ver. 22 are thought by Ell. and de W., to imply too much of evil in candidates 
for ordination and presbyters, provided the yepodecia of ordination is to be under- 
stood as referred to. But the general form of the statement does not, in such 
cases, affirm, necessarily, that what is spoken of is of frequent occurrence.—(d) 
The meaning of ver. 23, so far as the words of the verse are concerned, is suffi- 
ciently clear, but the question as to its connection with the context is one of much 
difficulty, and has given rise to various explanations. Among the most singular 
of these is that of Plumptre, who is one of the very recent writers on this epistle. 
His view is, that the preceding verse refers especially to cases of trials where 
offences against purity were to be considered. “ All experience shows,” says 
Plumptre, “that it is the weakened, bloodless brain that can least control its 
thoughts and is most open in its thoughts to impure imaginations.” Paul there- 
fore, probably under the advice of Luke, his medical adviser, suggests to Timothy 
that he should get his brain “into a state of healthy equilibrium” in preparation 
for such trials by “a moderate use of the stimulant which he had hitherto denied 
himself.” A recommendation to bishops and judges to guard themselves against 
the polluting influence of ecclesiastical cases of the sort indicated by a moderate 
use of stimulants, is certainly somewhat remarkable. Alford thinks that Timothy 
had a timidity and feebleness which prevented such keen sighted judgment and 
vigorous action as a bishop should show in estimating the characters of candidates 
for the ministry. Stimulants, taken with moderation, might overcome this feeble 
condition. This is hardly more probable than the suggestion of Plumptre. Some 
have supposed that it is a mere suggestion bearing upon Timothy’s health, with 
no reference to the preceding verse. The insertion of a recommendation -of this 
kind, respecting the bodily health of ‘the person addressed, is, however, in such a 
context, so improbable that this view must be rejected. ‘The true explanation is 
suggested by the connection, and by the fact that the thought passes on in the 
same line, but to a more general statement, as the sentences move from ver. 22 
to ver. 24. There can be little doubt, therefore, that ver 23 is a limitation of 
the last clause of ver. 22 in such a way as to indicate that what is mentioned in ver. 
22 b., is not to be carried to the extent of extreme asceticism.—(e) The words of 
vy. 24, 25 contain the statement of a general truth, but, in the connection, they 
must be regarded as having a more or less particular application to the subject 
which is especially under consideration. The word xpiow is to be taken in a 
wide and general sense, and the application will be determined by the matter 
which happens to be under discussion. The reference, so far as questions respect- 
ing presbyter are concerned, must naturally be to the judgment or trial of those 
questions: 


CHAP. VI. 183 


CHAPTER VI. 


Ver. 1. The reading dob2ov (F G) is to be regarded as a correction ; s0, too, 
with the reading dovAeiag (73, Sahid.).—Ver. 2. In & the words dre adeAgoi eiow 
are omitted, probably through an oversight. Instead of the curious evepyeciac 
here, F G, gr. 46, and some other cursives have the reading evoeBeiac ; 45 has 
ipyaciac.—Ver. 3. Instead of zpooépyetat (Ree. with the support of nearly all MSS.; 
Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7), has the reading mpooéyerae (in Latin: acquiescit), 
which Tisch. 8 adopted. This form occurs nowhere else in the N. T.—Ver. 4. 
Tisch. 7 read épecc, after D F G L, ete. ; Tisch. 8, on the contrary, €p/¢ (Ree. with 
the support of A K® etc.; so, too, Lachm. Buttm.). It can hardly be decided 
which is the original reading; the meaning is substantially the same in either 
case; possibly the singular was changed into the plural on account of the other 
plurals.—Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. tapadsarprBai, Griesb. rightly adopted dvava- 
patpBai, on the weightiest authority : A DFGYS, al., 10, 17, 28, ete., Clem. Basil. 
Chrys. ete. In one MS. dcarrapadiatpiBai is found ; others have dcatpi3ai ; others, 
maparpiBai; and one di @ rapatpiBai, which Reiche approves.—The words adic- 
taco ard Tov ToovTwY are, according to A D* F G& 17, 67** 93, al., Copt. Sahid. 
Aeth. Vulg. It., probably to be considered an addition not genuine, although they 
are found in K L, nearly all cursives, and the Fathers, Ambros. Pel. Chrys. ete. ; 
Griesb. marked them as very much to be suspected; Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
omitted them; Reiche, on the other hand, defended them as genuine.—Ver. 7. 
djiov] is wanting in several of the weightiest authorities, in particular AF G® 
17, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. etc., on which account it was also struck out by Lachm. 
Buttm. Tisch. 8. But asit is almost indispensable for the sense, its omission may per- 
haps be only an oversight, unless 671, as Buttm. p. 308 [E. T. 358], thinks, be elliptical 
for djaov brz.—Ver. 8. Instead of dvarpoodc, D F G and several cursives have the 
common singular form dcatpo97v ; and instead of apxecdnodueda, there is found in 
30, 117, 219, al., Vulg. Chrys. ete., the form apxecSjoaueba ; see on this, Winer, p. 
72 [E. T. p. 75].—Ver, 9. ‘After rayida, D* F G, several cursives, Fathers, and 
versions have Tow dcaZ6/0v, which, however, is to be regarded as an insertion from 
iii. 7—Ver. 11. Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, omitted the article tov before Ge0v ; it 
is wanting in A & 17.—In & the word evoéBerav is wanting —7pgérnra] This read- 
ing stands only in later MSS. ; A FGR® 71, Ignat. Petr. Alex. Ephr. Hesych. 
have tpairdbecav, which is therefore rightly adopted by Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. 
Tisch._—Ver. 12. cic jv] The Ree. is ei¢ iv Kai. The kai was rightly omitted by 
Griesb., on the authority of all uncials, many cursives, Syr. Arr. Copt. ete., Chrys. 
Theodor. ete.—Ver. 13. The oo: after mapayyéAw (Rec. supported by the most 
important authorities, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7) was omitted by Tisch. 8, on the 
authority of F G 17, etc.; so, too, with the article tov before 90, after §, 
though it stands in nearly all authorities. Instead of CworocovvTo¢ (Ree. K L®, 
al.), A DFG 17, ete., Ath. Cyr. ete. have Cwoyovovvtoc, which deserves preference 
as the more unusual word. Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. adopted it into the text; 


184 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 


Reiche, on the other hand, defends the Rec., especially on the ground that Paul 
uses the word Cwozoveiv continually of the futura hominum mortuorum ad vitam 
restitutio, quacum rerum universarum instauratio conjuncta erit—Ver. 17. év 7¢ 
viv aidv] is changed in D E, Syr. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. ete. into ted viv aidvoc. For 
aid, ® has yaipo; and for byyAogpoveiv, byyAa gpoveiv, which Tisch. 8 adopted. 
—ivy 7@ 09] For the preposition év (Rec. D*** K L, Tisch. 7, Reiche), A D* F 
G &, several cursives, ete., have éxi (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). This reading 
seems, however, to have arisen from a correction in order to make this clause sym- 
metrical with the one previous. The article to (Rec. A D*** E K L, etc.; Lachm. 
Buttm. Tisch. 7) is wanting in D* F G 8, al. (Tisch. 8).—r» Cov] omitted by 
Lachm. and Tisch., after A G 17, 28, 47, al., many versions, is to be regarded as 
not genuine. It may have been inserted from a recollection of iv. 10.—7avra 
thovoiwe| adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. for w/Aovciwg ravra, after D E 17, 44, 
46, al. Syr. Arr. Copt. Vulg. ete., Basil. Chrys. Theodoret, etc. Lachm. and 
Buttm. read, on the authority of A 17, 37, 57, al., 7a mavta rAovoiwe, which might 
deserve preference as the more difficult reading—Ver. 19. The Rec. aiwviov is 
manifestly a correction of the original 6vtwe (in A D* E F G® 17, 28, 31, 57, al., 
Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. ete., Constitut. Clem. Orig. Basil. ete.), which Griesb. rightly 
received into the text.—Ver. 20. mapadijxyv] rightly adopted by Griesb. for 
mapakatav7Kyv, on the authority of A D EF G® 31, 37, 44, al., Sahid. Syr. Clem. 
Ignat. al. ; comp. 2 Tim. i. 12,14. The reading xavvogwvriag (for xevod.), in F G 
73, It. Vulg. (profanas vocum novitates) and the Latin Fathers, is an oversight 
arising from the similarity of a and ¢ in sound.—Ver. 22. 7 yapi¢ peta cov] For 
cov, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, after A F G 17, al., adopted ye ior, perhaps a cor- 
rection from 2 Tim. iv. 22 and Tit. iii. 15. Tisch. 7 had the Rec. cov, after D E 
K L, most cursives, several versions, ete—The Rec. aj at the end (after D** 
K L) is to be regarded as not genuine, on the authority of A D* F G8, ete. 


Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XVIII., page 198.] Precept regard- 
ing the conduct of Christian slaves. [XVIII a.]—iéoo eisiv ir6 Cuydv doior] 
dovaoc is added to explain eiciv txi¢. Paul does not say simply dco 
eisiv dovio., because he wishes to mark the oppressive circumstances of 
the condition of aslave. (vyéc¢is not used elsewhere in the N. T. of the 
yoke of slavery (in Herodotus: dotduov Cvyév). The expression is not to be 
‘limited to those slaves who were oppressed more than usual by their mas- 
‘ters, as Heydenreich thinks, quoting 1 Pet. ii. 18. It is clear from the 
clause iva x.7.2., a8 Well as from the contrast in ver. 2, that Paul is think- 
ing here of the slaves who had heathen masters.—roic idiove dearérac] iWiovg 
is so far emphatic, that it directs attention .to the circumstance of the per- 
sonal relation more than would be done by the usual pronoun.—zrdone¢ 
riyuq¢ (t. e. of all honor which is due to them as masters) a&/ove iyeiofwow (f. 
agwvv, v.17); comp. the exhortations in Tit. 11:9; Eph. vi. 5-8; Col. iii. 
22-95; 1 Pet. ii. 18—In confirmation, Paul adds iva py 76 bvoua k.7.2.; 
comp. Tit. ii. 10..—rd dvoua row Oe00 | comp. Rom. ii. 24.—7 didacxaria] the 
gospel, as the doctrine prevailing among Christians—Ver. 2. oi dé ricroic 


1The meaning is correctly given by Chry- dnuncer TOAAGKLS WS OTACLY EuTrOLODY TO Soyma* 
sostom: 0 amgtos av peéev dn Tovs SovAous otav d€ tdn mevOouevous, waddAov trevaOyceTat, 
sa THY Tiotir avOadws mpodepopevous, BAag- waAAov mpogeger Tois Aeyouevors 


CHAP. vi. 1, 2. 185 


Eyortec deorérac] The adversative dé shows that the apostle is here speak- 
ing of other slaves than in ver. 1, viz., as he himself says, of those whose 
masters are zoro/, not keeping their slaves as ix Cvyév, but treating them 
kindly and gently because of their zior«¢. This last point is, indeed, not 
formally expressed here, but it is presupposed in pj katagpoveitwcav.— 
morove is either to be joined with deorérac as an adjective, or to be taken as 
a substantive, deoxérac defining it more precisely : “who have believers as 
masters.” The order of the words might give the preference to the latter 
view.—/) katagpoveitwoar’] karagpoveiv denotes here conduct towards masters 
in which the honor due to them is not given.—or: adeAgoi eiow] These words 
are not the ground of the previous exhortation; they are the ground on 
which the dovAoc might be led to think their masters of little worth; not 
the slaves, but the masters, form the subject (de Wette, Wiesinger; van 
Oosterzee, and others).—d424 wa2Aov dovdevérwoar] uadAov, equivalent to “ all 
the more.” —are mioroi eior Kai ayaryrtoi, of K.7.A.] With ayaryrot we must sup- 
ply Qcov (Rom. i. 7; comp. Rom. xi. 28); “beloved of God;” this is sup- 
ported by the close connection with toroi—The subject is formed not by 
the slaves (Wetstein: intelligo non de dominis, sed de servis, qui dant 
operam, ut dominis beneficiant et bene de iis mereantur), still less by both 
slaves and masters (Matthies), but by the masters only. The only possible 
construction is this, that of . . . avriAauBavéuevor forms the subject, moroi 
... ayaryroi the predicate [XVIII 6.]; for the article shows that the 
words oi r7¢ x.7.A. do not give a more precise definition of what precedes. 
Most recent expositors (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, also 
hitherto in this commentary) understand by 7 eiepyecia the kindness which 
the slaves show to their masters by faithful service, and explain av7iAau- 
Baveoda as equivalent to “receive, accept ;” but this explanation cannot 
be justified by usage.1. In the N. T. the word occurs only in Luke i. 54 
and Acts xx. 35, in the sense of “accept of some one.” This sense it has 
also in classic Greek, when it refers to persons; in reference to things, it 
means: “carry on something eagerly,” also: “ make oneself master of a 
thing.” Hofmann accordingly is not incorrect in translating: “devote 
themselves to kindness, making it their business.” If we keep strictly to 
this meaning, as indeed we must, then the words oi Tr. evepy. avTiAauBaveuevor 
apply to the Christian masters in regard to their conduct towards their 
slaves, so that the meaning of the exhortation is: “ Serve (your masters) 
all the more, that they, devoting themselves to kindness towards you, are 
believers and beloved (of God).”? De Wette, against this explanation, main- 
tains that “it makes the predicate ‘believing’ somewhat superfluous, 


1De Wette wrongly seeks to justify this 
meaning by saying that avtcAapBaveo@ar also 
means: “perceive with the senses,” and that 
in Porphyrias, De Abstin. i. 46, it means: mje 
éEgbiwy TAELOvwY ydSovey avTiAjWeTac. Though 
the Vulg. translates it; “qui beneficii par- 
ticipes sunt,” and Luther; “and are partakers 
of the benefit,” the word is taken in a sense 
foreign to it. The same is true of Ieyden- 


reich’s explanation: “avyxow.vwvot THs Xapt- 
tos” (Phil. i. 7), wherein he also arbitrarily 
takes evepyeoia as equivalent to xaprs. 

2So rightly Theophylact: oi tis evepyeotas 
avrtAapBavouevor, Tovtéat.: oi Searotar ot 
dpovtigovtes Tov evepyeTervy Tovs SovAovs; SO, 
too, Chrysostom, Grotius, Wegscheider, Leo, 
and others, 


186 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


because the masters, being kindly towards their slaves, are already show- 
ing their Christian faith in action.” He is wrong; for, on the one hand, 
evepyeoia towards slaves might be true even of heathen; and, on the other, 
Paul wishes to insist on the Christian belief of the masters as a motive 
for careful and faithful service. Hofmann is wrong in thinking that «ai 

. avridauB. does not depend on 67, but forms an independent clause in 
this sense, that the slaves who serve their masters willingly in distribut- 
ing their alms, are beloved (viz. by their fellow-Christians). This view is 
opposed not only by the «ai (for to what previous sentence is it to be 
attached ?), but also by this, that whereas the dvr:AauBardueve are the slaves, 
tov deorérwv is arbitrarily supplied with evepyeciac—The apostle concludes 
the exhortations given in regard to the slaves with the words: raira didacke 
kai mapakdaer, Which Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. wrongly refer to what fol- 
lows; comp. iv. 11, vy. 7; the right construction is given by de Wette, 
Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. 

Vy. 3-5. [On Vy. 3-10, see Note XIX., pages 198-200.] Description of 
the heretics. [XIX a, b.]—ei ree érepodidackare1] On érepodWacKareiv, comp. 
1.3; ei tu often occurs in the epistle for éor¢ or the like; comp. iii. 5, v. 
8; the thought is given in its most comprehensive form.—«a? pu) tposkpyera 
«.7.4.] [XIX ¢.] defines érepodidackadeiv more exactly, characterizing it as 
opposed to the pure doctrine of the gospel, [XIX d.] asa preaching there- 
fore of heresy (not merely “of a doctrine which has not the quality of 
being pious” (!), Hofmann).—zpooépyeotac is used of mental agreement, 
and is equivalent to “agree with” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) ;! 
On by:aivover Adyoe, comp. i. 10. Hofmann arbitrarily explains the word 
by : “devote oneself to a thing; employ one’s pains on it.” If zpooéyerat 
is the correct reading, then it is to be explained: “and does not hold fast 
by sound words.” The genitive tov kvpiov ju. I. Xp. gives the source from 
which the Adyor proceed. Kal rH kar’ evoéBevav didackaria] an epexegetic 
addition to what preceded. The expression is not, with Leo and Wiesinger, 
to be explained by: doctrina ad pietatem ducens; xara rather expresses 
.. the relation of correspondence, suitability (van Oosterzee). By eicéBera is 
meant Christian piety.—Ver. 4. terigwra:] comp. iil. 6.2 With this word 
-begins the apodosis, which Wegscheider, Mack, and others find expressed 
only in adicraco ard Tt. Towttwr, Which words we can hardly consider gen- 


uine. ndév éxiotduevoc (comp. i. 7), the participle is not to be resolved 
into “although;” all the more that rerigwrac conveys a suggestion of 


dumbness. Their knowledge, on which they presume, is limited to fables, 
and does not penetrate into the truth.—a”A2a voodv epi Cyrfoee Kai Aoyoua- 
xiac| voodv, in contrast with byraivover Adyoue in ver. 8.—Ilepi Cytioerg K.7.A. 
gives the sickness of which he is ill. Luther, not clear: “diseased in 


1Comp. Philo, de Gigantt. p. 289: pmSevi 
mporepxecbar yrwouy TOV cipnuévwr. 
2 Hofmann thinks that reridwrac does not 


moral, but in regard to their spiritual con- 
dition.” This opinion is contradicted by the 
fact that in what follows voo@y «.7.A. mani- 


here, as in iii. 6, contain the idea of darkness, 
since “ Paul means to express regarding the 
schismatics an opinion, not in regard to their 


festly denotes a moral fault. 
3Comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 288: 0 voo@y epi 
Adywv axonv; Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 406}. 


CHAP. VI. 3—5. 187 


questions ;” Stier, correct: “diseased with.”—On (nro, comp. i. 4; the 
addition of Joyouayiae denotes more exactly the nature of the Cyrioevc. 
Calvin: Aoyouaxiag nominat contentiosas disputationes de verbis magis, 
quam de rebus, vel (ut vulgo loquuntur) sine materia aut subjecto. The 
word (occurring only in later Greek) is az. “ey., the verb Aoyouayeiv, 2 Tim. 
ii, 14—Hitherto he has described the “condition of soul among the 
érepodWackahovvres ” (Wiesinger) ; the consequences of their (77. and Aoyou., 
particularly the destructive tendencies, are given in what follows: é& ov 
yiverat .7.A.] o06voc, épic,t BAacdnuia, form a-climax. [XIX e.] PBAaognuiac 
and inévora rovypai are wrongly understood by Chrysostom of conduct 
towards God. On the latter expression, equivalent to “ wicked suspicion ” 
(Luther), see Wisd. iii. 24; the word is az. Aey. in the N. T. Hofmann 
wishes to separate movypai from irdvoat, and to connect it with the next 
word, “ because irovoeiv in itself means suspecting evil.” But, on the one 
hand, érovoeiv has often the simple meaning “conjecture” (e.g. Acts xiii. 
25; also in classic Greek); and, on the other hand, “the suspicion of 
something evil,” and “the evil, wicked suspicion,” are by no means 
identical things.—Ver. 5. diarapatpiBai] This word and rapadcatpiBai (ac- 
cording to the usual reading) are not equivalent, as Heydenreich thinks; 
see Winer, p. 96 [E. T. p. 102]. The distinction between taparpi37 and 
dvatpiB4 is to be maintained. Avatp:87 means, in regard to time: “its con- 
sumption, pastime, occupation ;” with the prefix zapa there is added the 
idea of idle, useless, so that rapadvatp137 denotes the useless occupation of 
time. The word raparp:34 (only in later Greek) means: “ wrangling, dis- 
pute;” da serves to intensify the meaning, hence diaraparpi34 iS equiva- 
lent to “continuous or violent wrangling” (de Wette). Luther translated 
it: “scholastic disputes.” As the idea of strife has been given already by 
Epic, We might be inclined to consider the Rec. to be the original reading, 
were the evidence for it not too weak. The same may be said of the 
reading dvarpeBai, which Hofmann, without sufficient ground, maintains to 
be “what was originally written.” At any rate, the idea “continual 
wrangling” is not so identical with that of “strife” (pic) as to prevent 
them from being used together? Reiche paraphrases the reading 6’ @ 
rapatpiBai as equivalent to per quae, nempe vitia morbosque animi vs 4, 
exoriuntur rixae et certamina, etc.; but d’ @ is not equivalent to per quae, 
and the previous é& dv is against this construction.—die¢fapuévov avbporov 
rov vovv] Regarding this accus., see Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 229]; comp. 2 
Tim. iii. 8:5 “whose understanding is destroyed.’—kai areotepypévov TIC 
aAnbeiac] “who have been robbed of the truth.” This and the previous par- 
ticipial clauses indicate that formerly the heretics had their understanding 


avdpes.—The meaning “ provocations” (Mack), 
and this other: “wicked and hurtful meet- 
ings or clubs” (Heinrichs), can be assigned 
neither to tapadtatpiBai nor to dvamaparprBat. 


1Clemens Al. Stromata, vii. p. 759: vmod dSo- 
focohias émnpméevor épiGovtes meAovar. 

2O0ecumenius explains the expression amo 
MeTapopas Tov Wwpadréwv mpoBatwv, and Chry- 


sostom says likewise : ka@amep Ta Wwpadéa TOV 
mpoBdtwv mapatpiBomeva vooov Kal Ta vytal- 
vovTa éumiumAnowv, oUTwW Kal oDTOL ol TOVNpOL 


3 Xenophon, De Exped. Cyri, iv. 259; dvepOape 
févot TOS OPBadpous. 


188 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


sound, and were in possession of the truth, but that they had lost both these 
jewels, according to iv. 1, by the influence of demons. It should never 
have been denied that they who are thus described were actual heretics. 
—The next clause adds another peculiar characteristic, which proves the 
Sepbappévov K.7.A.: vouildvtwy roprouov elvae tHv evoéBevav] ropioudc (Only here 
and at ver.6; comp. Ecclus. xiii. 19, xiv. 2) is equivalent to “means of 
gain,” i.e. a business bringing gain; Luther: “ trade.”—Wegscheider 
wrongly explains eioéBera as equivalent to 7 Kav’ evoéBecav didackadia. The 
idea is to be kept in its proper meaning; although that which the heretics 
made to appear evoéBera Was not evoéBeva, but only the appearance of it (2 
Tim. ill. 5: pdpewow evoeBeiac), by means of which they sought to make 
earthly gain (Tit. i. 11).—As to the construction, it seems most natural to 
make the substantive at the beginning of the verse dependent on é& dv 
yiwera, ver. 4, along with the substantives before it. Hofmann, on the con- 
trary, thinks it curious, “that besides the bad things already mentioned, 
there should also be named those with whom they occur;”’ and he wishes 
rather to regard rovypat dcatpiBai (which he reads) as in apposition to 
Cythoete Kai Aoyouayiac, just as in Jas. iii. 8, where the nominative stands in 
apposition to the previous accusative as a kind of exclamation. This 
construction is possible, but it is by no means necessary, and from the 
structure of the sentence not even probable-—The last remark furnishes 
the apostle with an opportunity for a digression on Christian contentment.! 

Ver. 6. "Eore 62 x.7.A.] Calvin: eleganter et non sine ironica correctione 
in contrarlum sensum eadem verba retorquet. The meaning is: piety is 
certainly a opionéc, but in another and higher sense than the heretics 
suppose ; éo7: is Opposed to voufdvtwv (ver. 5), Wiesinger.—ropicpic péyac 


x.7.A.] [XIX f.] zopiouéc has here the same meaning as before; Luther 
wrongly says: “it is, however, a great gain, one that is blessed,’ ete—7 


evoéBeva wera avtapkeiac | “Piety when united with contentment,” which certainly 
belongs of necessity to true piety. The gain of which the apostle is here 
thinking is not the heavenly, eternal blessings (Theodoret: rjv yap aidvov 
_ jyiv ropifer Cogv; Calvin, Heydenreich, Matthies, and others), but the gain 
to which we are directed in the next verses, 7-10. Several expositors hold 
the gain to be the abrdpxeca itself (so Chrysostom, Bengel: nam affert 
de Wette, and others?) ; but this reference is not indicated. in 
the added words : On aivrdpxesa, comp. Phil. iv. 11: é&a 
éuahov é&v oi¢ Etptt avrdpKne elvat. 

Ver. 7 begins the confirmation of the principle that godliness with con- 
tentment is a great ropioudc. The apostle here places two clauses together, 
each of which contains a well-known and undoubted truth: “ We brought 
nothing into the world,” and “ We can take nothing out of it.’® The question 


avTapKelan 5 


peta avTapKeiac. 


1Hofmann’s opinion, that the deductions 
following are not occasioned by the conduct 
of the heretics, but by Timothy’s conduct, 
are not warranted by the exhertation in ver. 
11: Tatra dhevdye. 

2 Van Oosterzee :“ In one short, compressed 


sentence, the apostle expresses two chief 
ideas, that true piety of itself makes content, 
and that by doing so it brings great gain.” 
8The same two thoughts are found else- 
where in collocation; so Job i. 21; Eccles. v. 
14; also in the profane writers, e. g. Seneca, 


CHAP. VI. 6-9. 189 


is unly, in what relation do they stand to one another? According to the 
common view, the first thought serves to confirm the second: “As we 
brought nothing in, it is manifest that we will take nothing out.” Against 
this, Hofmann maintains that the second thought is in no way a conse- 
quence of the first. He therefore takes djAov ére as an adverbial: 
“clearly,” standing at the end of the sentence, but belonging to both 
clauses; and he explains: “Clearly we have brought nothing in, and can 
also take nothing out.” He is certainly right that the first does not strictly 
prove the second; but then the apostle did not intend that it should; he 
simply placed the two sentences together, the second corresponding to 
the first in such a way as to be confirmed by it in popular opinion. 
Hence it is not right to connect—contrary to the order of the words— 
djAov ore with the first sentence. As to the lack of d7A0v before dre (see 
the critical remarks), de Wette observes: “that in popular logic the con- 
sequence is often quoted with 67 as the reason, e.g. Homer, I. xvi. 35, 
Od. xxii. 36.” This, however, is not to the point here; in the two passages 
quoted, 67: simply denotes the logical ground of knowledge. 

Ver. 8. “Eyovrec dé] De Wette thinks that for dé we should have had oi». This 
is certainly right; still the bearing of this verse on the previous one would 
have been different from what itis now. The apostle used dé because he 
had in mind the contrast to those striving after earthly gain.—d:atpoddc¢ Kat 
oxerdouata] The same collocation in Sextus Empiricus, Book ix.1; the two 
expressions only occur here in the N. T. (dcatpo¢7, 1 Mace. vi. 49). Sxéracua, 
the covering, hence both clothing and dwelling. Here it is to be taken in 
the former sense ; de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others include 
both senses in it; but it is more than improbable that one word should be 
used to denote two different objects.!. In food and clothing the necessary 
wants of life are also elsewhere summed up; comp. Matt. vi. 25; Jas. ii. 
15; Gen. xxvili. 20.—robroe apkecOyoducha] “we will be content with them.” 
Hofmann’s explanation is wrong: “so will we have enough of them.” The 
passive apxeiofa occurs as a personal verb only in the sense of “ be content 
with ;” comp. Luke ii. 14; Heb. xiii. 5; 3 John 10; 2 Mace. v. 16; 4 
Mace. vi. 22; so, too, continually in profane writers; comp. Pape, s.v.— 
The future is here taken imperatively by several expositors. It is well 
known that the imperative is often expressed by the future, but there is 
no passage which exactly corresponds with this (comp. Buttmann, p. 221 
[E. T. 259]). It is better, therefore, to take the future here in the sense 
of sure expectation (so de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt; comp. 
Winer, p. 296 [E. T. p. 315 f.]). 

Ver. 9. Of d& Bovdduevor zhovreiv] [XIX g.] dé expresses opposition to 
what immediately preceded. rAovreiv is properly not “become rich,” but 
“ be rich.” —éurinrovow (cf. iii. 7) cic retpacpdv Kai rayida] De Wette explains 
it inaccurately : “to whom enticing opportunities present themselves for 
unrighteous gain.” In éuzizrew is contained the indication of the power 


Ep. 102: non licet plus efferre, quam intul- 1Chrysostom : tovadta audrévyvcOat, & oKe- 
eris. For the second thought, comp. Job magat “ovov Hnuas opeiAer Kat wEpLoTEiAae THF 
Exvil. 19: Ps: xlix: 12: yUpvwou. 


190 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


which the zecpacuéc (“the temptation to enrich oneself unrighteously ”) 
exercises over them.—By rayida, the re:paoyéc is defined to be a power fet- 
tering and taking prisoner.—xai éxbuuiac roAdac avofrove Kai BAaBepdc] This 
is the consequence immediately connected with what precedes: by falling 
into wepacuéc, they fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts, 7. e. these lusts 
are not only excited in them, but gain power over them. Thus the seduc- 
tive power of the wecpacuéc can be recognized in the éxuuiac. These are 
also avéyro, because instead of the gain which was expected to come from 
satisfying them, they bring hurt only.—cirwee (explanatory: “such as”) 
Buvdilovor cig bAe0pov Kai axoAevav] Budigew; in the literal sense at Luke v. 7; 
2 Mace. xii. 4.—Destruction is likewise the deep into which they are 
plunged by their desires. The expression is strengthened by bringing 
together the two synonymous ideas. There is no ground for van Ooster- 
zee’s conjecture that 62¢%poc denotes the destruction of the body, aréAeca 
the destruction of the soul. De Wette incorrectly explains the words of 
“moral ruin,” against which Wiesinger justly observes: “ they are in that 
already.” 6Ae%poc stands here as in 1 Thess. v. 3,2 Thess. i. 9 (6%e8po¢ 
aiavioc) ; axdAea, aS in Phil. i. 28 (opp. 7 cwrypia), iii. 19, and other passages. 
—There is no good ground (with Olshausen in Wiesinger) for understand- 
ing 62e9po¢ exclusively of temporal destruction. 

Ver. 10 gives a reason for the thought in ver. 9.—/ifa yap rdévTwv Tov Kakav 
éotiv 4 giAapyvpia] It is to be observed that Paul does not mean to say, 
whence all «axa whatever proceed, but what proceeds from @¢:Aapyupia. 
Hence there is no article with jifa. Hence, too, de Wette’s correcting 
remark, that ambition, too, may entirely destroy man, does not affect the 
author of the epistle—By 7a «axé may be understood both physical and 
moral evils (wickedness) ; here the latter idea is uppermost.! g:Aapyupia only 
here in the N. T. (VJer. viii. 10, LX X.).—je twice dpeydpevor] opéyeodac does 
not mean deditum esse, but it is to be acknowledged that the manner of 
connection is not exact, since ¢:Aapyupia, as de Wette rightly says, is itself 
an épefic. Hofmann’s interpretation is artificial. He makes dpéyeota de- 

note here “ the grasping of a man after something out of his way,” and 
_ “the thing after which he reaches sideways is said to be the plant which 
afterwards proves to be to him a root of all evils,” so that 7¢ does not refer 
to giAapyrpia, but to pila mdvtwv tov Kaxov.—arerAavhSnoav ard Tie riarewc | 
The reason of this is the inner connection between faith and blessedness. 
The denial of the one necessarily implies the denial of the other. The 
aorist passive has a neuter sense ; Luther rightly: “have gone astray from 
the faith.” The compound only here and at Mark xiii. 22; the aré added 
serves to intensify the meaning.—xai éavroi¢e mepiérepav odbvag trodAaic] 
TepiTeipe ar. Zey. “ pierce through,” not “sting all round, wound in every 
part” (Matthies). The édvvac roAdai, here regarded as a sword with which 
they have pierced themselves through, are not the outward pains which 
they have drawn on themselves by avarice, but the stings of conscience 
(“the precursors of the future a7é/«a,” Wiesinger) which they have pre- 


1Otherwise in Polycarp, Ep.4: apxn ravtwy xaderav pidapyupia. 


CHAP. VI. 10-12. 191 


pared for themselves by apostasy from the faith. To this his own exper- 
ience the apostle here directs attention, that he may thereby present more 
vividly the destructiveness of the g:Aapyupia. 

Ver. 11. [On Vv. 11-21, see Note XX. pages 200, 201.] The apostle 
again turns to Timothy, exhorting him to a faithful fulfillment of his 
Christian and evangelical vocation.—si dé] opposed to rwée ver. 10. [XX 
a.J]—é avdpare [tov] Ocotv] The-expression may be taken in a more gen- 
eral or a more special sense; so, too, in 2 Pet. i. 21. It does not, however, 
follow “that Paul thus names Timothy here because of his evangelic 
office;” the exhortations following rather show that the apostle was 
thinking of Timothy’s position as a Christian; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 17.— 
tavta gevye| tavta refers to the @:Aapyvpia and that which is connected with 
it (de Wette, Wiesinger, and others) ; not to everything that has been said 
in vy. 3-10, because “vy. 17 ff. show that the author is keeping in view 
the subject of riches,” de Wette.  detyev vitare; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 22; 1 
Cor. vi. 18. Hofmann wrongly deduces from this exhortation that Timo- 
thy had some inclination to gAapyupia ; one might as well deduce from the 
next exhortation that Timothy had no inclination to dicacooivy «7.2. Itis 
to be observed that it is not said ¢eiye ax6 or éx TovTwv; comp., besides, the 
passages quoted.—diwxe d& tiv Sixacocbvyv] didxey here as in Deut. xvi. 20, 
LXX.; Rom. xii. 18, and other passages of the N. T.!. Paul names six 
Christian virtues which Timothy is to cultivate, the six being arranged in 
pairs. The two most general in meaning are placed first: dixacocivyv 
(righteousness) and evoéBevav (comp. Tit. ii. 12). Then follow ziorw (not 
‘faithfulness or conscientiousness,” but “ faith ”’) and aydryv as the ground 
principle of the Christian life. Last come tizouoviy and xpaizéSerav [XX b.] 
(az. Aey., Philo, de Abrah. p. 379), which denote the Christian conduct 
proper in regard to the hostility of the world against the gospel, the 
former being opposed to submission, the latter to exasperation. 

Ver. 12. ’Ayovifov tov xaddv aydva tHe Tiotew] [XX c.] Here, as in i. 18 
(tHv KadAjv orpateiav), We must not overlook the definite article. The strug- 
gle to which Timothy issummoned is the struggle (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 25) of 
the faith appointed to Christians; on this comp. 2 Tim. iv. 7.—éAaBov ric 
aiwviov Coc] éxiAauBdvew (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24 and Phil. iii. 12, where the 
apostle uses the expressions AauBdvew and xatazauBdverv) denotes the actual 
grasping, aidvioc Cw# being regarded as the BpaGeiov; not, however, accord- 
ing to Winer’s remark (p. 293 [E. T. p. 312}), “ as result of the struggle, but 
as object of the striving.” It is not improbable that Paul is here speaking 
figuratively. It is different, however, with the next words: eic¢ Fv éxApdIne, 
by which eternal life is pointed out as the goal of Timothy’s vocation ; 
comp. 1 Pet. v. 10.—«xai duoréyyoac tiv Kaj 6uoroyiav] Heinrichs incorrectly 
takes «ai for cai yap: “for thou hast also.” Commonly this clause is made 
to depend still on cic wv (Leo: eic wv pertinet non solum ad éxA#Fyc, sed 
etiam ad dyoAdyyoac). De Wette,on the contrary (Wiesinger and van Oos- 


~Neque exteris scriptoribus infrequens est  Cyropaedia, viii. 1. 39; Thucydides, ii 5; 
aec hujus verbi notio; see Xenophon. Leo. 


192 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


terzee agree with him), rightly regards it as simply co-ordinate with ei¢ jv 
éxAydnc. So,too, Hofmann: “the relative clause, as is not seldom the case 
in Greek, passes into a clause independent of the relative.” Still the two 
clauses must be taken as standing in close connection ; Timothy’s xa2q 
éuoaoyia is the answer which he gave to the «Ago proclaimed to him (so, 
too, Hofmann).—r7 Karj éuoroyiav] [XX d.] In this phrase, too, exposi- 
tors have not observed the definite article. Paul does not say that Timo- 
thy confessed a confession good “in its contents and in the enthusiasm of 
its utterance,” de Wette; but that he confessed the good confession, 7. e. 
the definite confession of Christ to which the disciples of the Lord are 
appointed. Hence it is quite wrong to think of éuoAoyia as a vow or the 
like; that contradicts the constant usage of the N. T.; comp. © Cor. ix. 
13; Heb. iii. 1, 4,14, x. 23.—Paul is clearly referring here to a definite fact 
in Timothy’s life, but what it was he does not say. Chrysostom says: 
avamipvgoKer THE KaTHXHoEwe avTév, and thinks therefore of the confession of 
Timothy at his baptism. Others, on account of ver. 18, understand it of 
a confession which Timothy had confessed during a persecution. Accord- 
ing to most, Paul is here thinking of the same act as that to which iv. 14 
refers. Since in this whole section, vv. 11-16, there is nothing to direct 
the attention to Timothy’s official position, and since the évoAoyia is closely 
joined with the éxaydnc, the view first given is to be considered the right 
one (Hofmann). 

Vy. 13, 14. TapayyéAAw oor] Matthies regards ri xarqv duoroyiav as the 
subject belonging to this; but against this construction there is both the 
meaning of the verb and the rypijoai ce following.’ Leo justly says: quo 
magis ad finem vergit epistola, eo gravior existit apostoli oratio. To give 
his exhortation greater force, Paul adds to rapayyéA2w (comp. i. 8) the 
words of adjuration : évérvov tov Oc00 x.7.2.—Todi Gwoyovotvtoc Ta Tavta] Cwoyo- 
vetv in the classic usage, equivalent to “bring forth alive, make alive,” 
serves in the LXX. for translating the Piel and Hiphil of 1 in the double 
signification : “ maintain in life,” Ex. i.17; Judg. vili.19, and other pas- 
_ sages; and “make alive,”’ 1 Sam. ii. 6 (comp. 2 Kings v. 7). In the N. T. 
it occurs here and at Luke xvii. 33, Acts vil. 19, in the sense of “maintain 
in life.’ When connected with ra rdvra, Cwoy. is not to be understood 
specially of the resurrection (de Wette, van Oosterzee), but either “of God’s 
might that wpholds everything” (Wiesinger, Hofmann), or, still better, of “ His 
power that quickens everything” (Plitt), in the same sense as it is said of God 
in Neh. ix. 6: ot Cworoeie ra tavTa. God is therefore mentioned here as the 
source of life for the universe (ra wavr7a), there being a special reference to 
ver. 12: émiAaBov tic aiwviov Coyc¢.—Kai Xp.’Iyo. row paptuphoavro¢g éxt Iovriov 
TiAdrov rv Karp duoroyiav] tv k. 6uodoyiay is not dependent on rapayyéAAw 
(Matthies: “I make known to thee... the good confession ’’), but on 
paptuphoavroc. It is open to question, however, whether the «aA7 duoAoyia 
is the confession of the Christian which Timothy too has made (Wiesin- 


> The objections made by Matthies against __ this, that he considers the definite article ™ 
the correct construction are only founded on to be unsuitable before xadny ouodoyiav. 


CHAP. VI. 13, 14. 193 
ger, Plitt, Hofmann), or the confession which Christ made (Leo, van Oos- 
terzee). In the former case, waprupew is much the same as “testify, 7. e. 
confirm, declare for truth ;” in the latter it is kindred in meaning with 
duoroyetv, Wiesinger asserts that yaptupety never has the latter meaning, 
but unjustly ; because in John v. 82 we have paprupiav yaptupen, and in John 
iii. 11 we have 6 oidayev Aahovuev kai 6 éwpdxayev paptrporuev (1 John 1. 2; 
Rev. i. 2). On the contrary, there is no passage to be found where paprupetv 
with the accus. means so much as “ confirm the truth of an utterance by 
a testimony in regard to it.”! The first view, therefore, is to be rejected 
as contrary to usage. Besides, the confession made by Jesus, and Timo- 
thy’s confession mentioned in ver. 12, are not in contents different from 
one another. De Wette thinks that paprupeiv “is used here in the well- 
known ecclesiastical signification, consequently that Christ is represented 
as the first martyr,” and that the meaning is: “ Christ confirmed the con- 
fession of the truth by His suffering and death.” This is not only against 
the usage of the N. T., but fails also by generalizing in an arbitrary way 
the idea of 7 Kay duodoyia.—lf 4 x. 640A. is the confession which Christ 
witnessed of Himself, x? Tovr. 1A. cannot mean: “under Pontius Pilate” 
(de Wette), but only: “before Pontius Pilate.” ’Exi stands here as 
in Matt. xxvili. 14, Acts xxv. 9, xxvi. 2, and other passages.—As 
the words added with rod Oevi point back to ri¢ aiwv. Cue, SO do those 
added here with Xp. ’Iyo. point back to kat duoddynoac K.7.A.—rtypqoai 
ce tiv évtoAyy domthov, averiAnntov] These words, depending on rapayyéAio, 
give the purpose of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy. Tzpew, joined with 
évroaf in many passages of the N. T., means “keep, observe,” as in chap. 
v. 22 (de Wette and most expositors ; Wiesinger differs).—T7v évroagu is not 
asingle moral or official law given specially to Timothy ; it is synonymous 
with # tapayyedia in i. 5 (so, too, Hofmann), pointing out the law of the 
gospel as the divine standard, according to which the Christian has to 
regulate his life.2—domAov and averiAytrov must, from their position, be 
referred to évroaqv,? and not toce.t Expositors take domaAov and averiAnrtov 
as two co-ordinate adjectives, so that for the sense «ai has to be supplied 
between them (so hitherto in this commentary). This, however, is against 
usage; «ai is dropped only when more than two attributes are reckoned, 
comp. e.g. iii. 2 ff., or when the one adjective forms one idea with the sub- 
stantive, so that the other adjective defines the compound idea more pre- 
cisely (comp. e.g. 1 Cor. x.4; see Winer, pp. 488 f. [E. T. p. 525]). It is 


1Had Paul wished to express the thought 
that Christ had confirmed, by word or deed, 


terzee) is arbitrary. Still it might perhaps 
be said that Paul sums up in tv évtoAjv the 


the truth of the Christian confession, he 
would have written the dative ry kaAj omoAo- 
yia.—The expression paptupiav paptupecr, also 
occurring in classic Greek, does not mean: 
“confirm the truth of a testimony,” but 
simply: “testify, i.e. make a testimony.”— 
The old expositors justly directed attention 
to Matt. xxvii. 11 and John xviii. 26 f. in re- 
gard to 7 Kady opodoyia. 

2The speeial reference to ver. 12 (van Oos- 


13 


commands which he gave to Timothy in vv. 
11, 12. In this command, however, there is 
also contained the sum of the whole Christian 
law. 

3 With de Wette, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hof- 
mann, and others. 

4As Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, and most 
suppose. Wiesinger thinks that aon. and 
averid. denote the result of ryphaae Thy EvToAny. 
But how can this be justified grammatically? 


194 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


more correct, therefore, to connect domAov closely with évro2#, and to take 
averiAyxtov in such a way that it declares how Timothy is to keep this 
évtoAy doraoc: he is to keep the commandment which is in itself spotless, 
and to keep it so as to expose it tono blame.—apé ypu rij¢ éxi@aveiac T. Kupion ju. 
'Ijo. Xp.] [XX e.] 7% éxiddvera is the second coming of Christ. The word 
occurs outside of the Pastoral Epistles only in 2 Thess. ii. 18 (2 Tim. iv. 1,8; 
Tit. ii. 13; in 2 Tim. i. 10, it is used to denote Christ’s first coming in the 
flesh). For the second coming we usually have azoxdéAuyue (1 Cor. i. 7) or 
mapovoia. The word éxigaveca brings into prominence the element of visi- 
bility in the rapovsia; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 8 (Wiesinger). Chrysostom’s 
explanation is wrong: péype ti of¢ TeAevt7#¢-—Bengel : fideles in praxi sua 
proponebant sibi diem Christi, ut appropinquantem, nos solemus nobis 
horam mortis proponere. 

Vv. 15, 16. The apostle concludes with a doxology, which is attached to 
the previous words by means of the relative clause jv . . . deer x.7.2.—fv 
Katpoicg idiowg deter] On xarpoic id., comp. ii. 6; Tit. i. 3; also Gal vi. 9.— 
detec] Bengel: ostendi dicitur, quod jam ante erat, Acts ili. 20. The verb 
does not mean “effect ;” nor is it, with Heydenreich, to be translated: 
“which He will show in its majesty, ‘will cause to follow and present in 
visible glory,” but simply: “which He will make visible, cause to appear.” 
The expression is used by the apostle in reference to Christ’s present hid- 
denness. The hope of the near return of Christ did not lead the apostle 
to fix arbitrarily the hour when that would take place.—Instead of the 
simple Oed¢, there follows, as subject to deiFe:, a series of designations for 
God, by which Paul represents God as the blessed, the only potentate, the 
immortal, the invisible—in one word, the absolute (comp. with this i. 17). 
This he does not simply for the purpose “of giving to his words a more 
solemn conclusion” (de Wette), but to satisfy the inward impulse of nam- 
ing the chief features of the idea of God as rooted in the Christian con- 
sciousness—specially in opposition to the fictions of the heretics (accord- 
ing to Wiesinger, “in antithetic reference to the striving after earthly 
riches, rebuked in the preceding verses”).—é jaxdpic] comp. i. 11; 
paxdpioc is to be taken as‘an adjective, as is clear from the omission of the 
article before pévoc—Kai pdvog duvdcrnc] To God alone as the Almighty is 
the predicate duvacry¢ due in the absolute sense; hence the addition of 
uévoc. The supreme power contained in dvvdorye (comp. 2 Mace. xii. 15; 
3 Mace. v. 51) is made still more prominent by the next words: 6 Bac”cic 
tov Baoidevdvrwy x.7.A.; comp. i. 17; Rev. xvii. 14; Deut. x. 17; Ps. exxxvi. 
3.—Ver. 16. 6 pdvoc Eywv adavaciav] comp. i.17. ’Adavacia is synonymous 
with agdapsia, 1 Cor. xv. 53.1—¢éc oikév arpéortov] This idea that God, who 
is Himself called light (1 John i. 5), dwells in light, is found nowhere else 
in the N. T.; but we may compare with it Ps. civ. 2; Ezek. i. 26 ff.2—The 


1Justin -Martyr (Quaest. et Respons. ad 2Chrysostom remarks on this: ovxcodv Kat 
Orthod. 61): ovos Exwv Thv aBavaciay A€yeTat TOmw eEuTEeplei(AnmTar; amaye: ovx iva TovTO 
0 @eds, OTe OVK Ek OeANmatos aAAoV TavTHY EXEL, vonowmev, add’ wa TO akaTaAnmTov Tis OElas 
KaQamep ot AouTot mavtes GPavaTot, AAA’ Ex TIS dicews Tapactian, bas avTov oie elmev 


Olixelas evotas, | aMpOsLTOV, OUTW Beodoynaas, ws Hv avTw SuvaToy. 


CHAP, vi. 15-17. 195 
verb oixeiv is found only here in the N. T. with an accusative; the con- 
struction is often found in the classics, also 2 Mace. v. 17, vi. 2.—azpéouroc 
is az. dey. in Holy Scripture. This participial clause does not serve as a 
reason for the one previous (Hofmann: “by dwelling in light unap- 
proachable”’), but adds to it a new definition of the divine nature ——To the 
idea that God is surrounded by an unapproachable majesty of light, there 
is attached the corresponding thought: 6v eidev oddeig avbpdrur, ovdé ideiv 
dvvarae; on which comp. John i. 18; 1 John iv. 12; Matt. xi. 27. The fol- 
lowing two sentences may serve as explanation : Theophilus (ad Autol. p. 
71): 1d eidog Tov Ocod . . . pH Svvauevov oo¥aApoic capkivorc dpadjvac; and 
Dionysius Areop. (De Divin. Nom. ch. i. p. 376, I. ed. Corder) 
Siavoiate adiavégrov éote TO brép didvorav év.'—O TY Kai Kpato¢ aidviov] comp. 
1. 17. ; 

Ver. 17. The apostle might have stopped at ver. 16; but, glancing back 
to vv. 9 ff., he adds another injunction in regard to the rich.2—roi¢ rAovaior 
év TO viv aid] [XX f.] Chrysostom: ¢eict yap nai GAdor miobvowt év 7G 
Still we cannot press the contrast so far as to make the earthly 
riches necessarily exclude the heavenly (wealth in God, Luke xii. 21).— 
mapayyeAre pn tpndoopoveiv| stwnAodpovetv only here and at Rom. xi. 20 
(Rom. xii. 16: ra byydAa gpoveiv): “ exalt themselves haughtily over others 
because of their possessions.” —y7dé 7AriKévae ixt TAobTOV adnAbTHTL] adnAbTHE 
(ax. Aey.), from adnAoc, which is equivalent to “not manifest, hidden,” is 
properly “hiddenness,” then “ wncertainty.” The word indicates that it is 
uncertain whether or not riches continue to him who possesses them 
(comp. 1 Cor. ix. 26: ad7/4wc). Instead of the substantive, we might have 
had the adjective: éxi 76 riobtw 76 ad72o (Luther : “on uncertain riches ”’); 
still the form of expression here makes the idea of uncertainty more 
prominent (see Winer, p. 221 [E. T. p. 236]), and that is all the more 
appropriate here that it points out more forcibly the folly of the hope. 
Hofmann explains ad7A6r7¢ unsuitably by “hiddenness,” in the sense of 
“the rich man having put his riches safely away,” as if riches would be 
put safely away by being hidden —aav év 76 6e6] The construction of 
éArifew with év is in the N. T. the more uncommon one, but comp. Eph. 
i. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 19—The truth that all hope must rest on God is con- 
firmed by adding the words: 76 rapéyovte juiv ta wavra (7.e. all that we 
possess) tAovainc eic anéAavow] sic ardéAavow (comp. iv. 3: ei¢ perdAnyr) is 
not added by way of opposition to a wrong abstinence, but in opposition 
to the tnAogpovetvy and HAmiKévae Ext TAobTw. The apostle means to say that 
God does not give us earthly blessings that we may possess them and be 


: jTaoalc 


bédAovTe. 


1There is no good ground for deriving, 
with Hofmann, all these names for God from 
His relations “to other potentates who meet 
with trouble, whom death does not permit to 
abide, who are not unapproachable and in- 
visible.” And there is as little ground for 
saying that this doxology was added, because 
the apostle intended to describe “God who 
will grant to see the appearance of Jesus as 


judge with reward or punishment, to describe 
Him as a potentate who is infinitely more 
and higher than all earthly kings and lords,” 
and did so because Timothy “was in danger 
of injuring his position as a Christian, and 
his calling as a teacher for the sake of gain” (!). 

2““There Paul had spoken of the dangers 
of those who wish to become rich; now he 
turns to those who are rich” (van Oosterzee), 


196 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


proud over them, but that we may enjoy them,—according to His will,— 
and therefore use them rightly. 

Ver. 18. The negative ideas of the previous verse are followed by four 
positive, joined two and two.—aya¥oepyeiv, wiovteiv év Epyowe Katoic] These 
ideas are synonymous, the second, however, being stronger than the first. It 
is not probable that we are to think only of the practice of benevolence ; 
that is brought out in the next two expressions. On aya¥oepyeiv, comp. 
Acts xiv. 17, where, however, the Rec. has ayadoroov ; the word ayavorouew 
in Num. x. 82, LXX.; 1 Macc. xi. 33.—Aovreiv év épy. ay. hints at roic 
riovoiowe év tT. viv aiave (Wiesinger).—etueradédrove elvat, kowwrixobc] The two 
expressions occur only here in the N. T.: eradidwu is, however, used 
specially of giving to the poor in Luke iii. 11; Rom. xii. 8; Eph. iv. 28. 
Some expositors wrongly find in xowwKot¢ an express contrast to tp7Ao- 
gpovev ; Chrysostom : = éuAntixot, rpoonveic. It stands here like kowoveiv, 
Gal. vi. 6; xowwvia (joined with evroiia), Heb. xiii. 16. 

Ver. 19. ’Arodnoavpifovtac éavtoic Oeuédvov xadév] The participle tells what 
the rich desire by the conduct already mentioned; it is not to be ex- 
changed with the infinitive. ’Azo#jo. and @euéAvov are not exactly suitable 
to one another. This, however, is not to be corrected by conjecturing 
(with Clericus) xeeu4Acov or (with Lamb, Bos) 6éua Aiav caddy, nor by explain- 
ing @euéAvov as equivalent to déua (Tob. iv. 9; Leo: “and gather for them- 
selves a good fund for the future ’’), nor even by taking dzodyo. as absolute 
and @eué2.ov as in apposition. Wolf: ita . ... ut divites thesauros sibi 
ipsis colligere jubeantur, qui sint fundamento alicui olim inservituri; 
Luther: “ gather treasures, to themselves a good ground for the future.” — 
arodyoarpife] “lay something aside for the purpose of preserving, and 
therefore collect.” It is unnecessary to give the word here the more 
general signification of “acquire.” The apostle’s thought is, that the 
rich, by giving away their #jcavpoic in sympathetic love, are gathering for 
themselves a treasure, and are also laying a good foundation on which 
their future salvation is built.—eic 7d péAAov is not to be connected with 
xaddv, but with the verb: “for the future.”—iva émAdBovrat tH¢ bvtTw¢ Cope) 
iva does not express the consequence, “so that,” but the purpose, “in 
_order that.” ’EmAdBwvra, comp. ver. 12; de Wette, rightly: “in order 
. that they (at the same time planting their feet on this basis) may seize; ” 
Tie 6vTw¢ Cupc, COMP. V. 3. 

Vy. 20, 21. Final exhortation and benediction to Timothy. The apostle 
begins fervently and impressively with: 5 T:uédee (Matthies).—rjv zapa- 
SyKnv gvAazov] [XX g.] comp. 2 Tim. 1. 12, 14; rapadjxn is a “ possession 
entrusted;” Paul does not say what kind of possession. Even in these 
parallel passages a more precise definition is, not given, except that at 
ver. 12 he denotes by pov that it is entrusted to him, and in ver. 14 adds 
the adjective xaamv. In any case there is meant by it here a gift entrusted 
to Timothy by God, which gift he is to preserve (¢(4aZov) from every hurt. 
As the apostle puts its preservation (¢vAdosevv) in close connection with 
the éxrpéreoda: of the heretics, we may understand by it either Timothy’s 
diaxovia (de Wette, Otto), or the gospel, “sound doctrine ” (Wiesinger, van 


CHAP. VI. 19-21. 197 


Oosterzee, Hofmann).—As the chief purpose of the epistle is to instruct 
Timothy regarding his conduct in the ministry committed to him, it 
seems right to understand by zapadj«y a possession entrusted, not to all 
Christians, but to Timothy in particular. Thus—in spite of the absence 
of cov—the first view deserves the preference, all the more that in the 
other passages quoted this meaning of the word is the most suitable. The 
next word, éxtperéuevoc, shows that Timothy would injure his office by 
entering upon the PéB7Ao. xevogwoviac. Plitt arbitrarily takes rapadjxn as 
equivalent to “ eternal life.” —éxrperduevoc rag BeBydove xevodwviac] ixtpérea Far, 
properly: “turn away from anything ;” then with the accusative (as in 2 
Tim. iii. 5: arorpérecda): “avoid,” synonymous with zapateiotar.— 
kevodwria | Synonymous with paraodoyia, i.6; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 16: “empty 
talk without anything in it.” —This talk is still more precisely defined by the 
next words: kat avtutécere tio Pevdwvripov yvdcewc] It is to be observed that 
avrudécerc is closely connected with the previous kevogwriac, the article .ra¢ 
belonging to both words and the genitive ric evd. yvdcewe referring to both 
alike. Hence avrvdéceve must here express some thought corresponding 
with xevogwriac. It is not therefore advisable to understand by it in general 
terms “ the statutes of the heretics against the gospel” (Matthies, Wies- 
inger), or “the controversial theses of the heretics directed against the 
gospel” (so before in this commentary’); it is much more correct to 
understand it of the theses which the heretics sought to maintain against 
one another (Hofmann). Thus understood, the word corresponds to 
Aoyouaxiac in ver. 4. It is possible that these had the character of dialectic 
proofs (Conybeare and Howson, quoted in van Oosterzee), but the word 
itself does not show this. Baur’s assertion is purely arbitrary, that the 
contrariae oppositiones are here meant which Marcion exerted himself to 
establish between the law and the gospel.—ric pevdevipov yrdceac| The 
expression is easily explained by the fact that the heretics boasted of 
possessing a knowledge, a @:Aosogia (Col. ii. 8), in which there was a more 
perfect science of divine things than that presented by the gospel—Paul 
was also acquainted with a yvaow, which, however, was rooted in faith, 
and was effected by the zvedua Xpiorov. But the yvédor of the heretics did 
not deserve this namie, and hence Paul called it pevddveuoc (occurring only 
here in the N. T.); on which Chrysostom aptly remarks: érav yap riore uH 
el, yvaots ovk got. Baur, without just ground, seeks to draw from the use 
of this word a proof for his hypothesis that the epistle was composed at 
the date of the heresy of Marcion.—Ver. 21. jv twee érayyeAAduevor] 
érayyéAdeoSa: stands here in the same sense as in ii. 10; Luther inexactly : 
“which some allege.” —zrepi tiv riotw qordyycav] The same construction 
in 2 Tim. ii. 18; with the genitive, 1.6. The érayyéAreotar tiv werd. yr. 
includes (comp. i. 6) the doroyeiv rept rt. rior, “ erring in regard to the 
faith.” This Wiesinger wrongly denies, with the remark that “the apostle 
did not consider the mere occupation with such things to be apostasy, but 


1 Against these explanations there is also containing anti-evangelic doctrines had de 
the relative clause jv «.7.A. attached to yvw- —_ parted from the faith. 
gews, since, of course, the followers of a yywors 


198 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


only a possible occasion for apostasy. ’Exayy. manifestly denotes more 
than merely being occupied with a thing. By ruveg here, as in i. 3, 6 
(vi. 3), we must understand the heretics. 

Ver. 22. The benediction, as in the other Pauline Epistles. If tuédv is 
the right reading, we can only infer from it that Paul intends the bene- 
diction for the whole church, not that he addresses the epistle to the 
whole church along with Timothy. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XVIII. Vv. 1, 2. 


(a) It is somewhat remarkable that the exhortation to slaves should be the only 
one having reference to civil or social relations, which is given here. Comp. Eph. 
vy. 22-vi. 9; Col. iii. 18-iv. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 18-111. 7., where other relations are men- 
tioned. The distinction made here between slaves having heathen and those hay- 
ing Christian masters, is not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. These two facts, 
as well as the words addressed to the slaves, may indicate the danger, in the case 
of this considerable section of the early believers, that the doctrine of Christian 
liberty which the Apostle preached might be carried to excess in other lines than 
those which were in the sphere of the distinctly Christian life. The evil to the 
cause of the gospel in all such undue pressing of liberty and equality, which was 
at that time especially to be apprehended; is indicated, in this passage, at the end 
of ver. 1. It was, that scandal and offense would be occasioned—that the name 
of God and the Christian teaching would be spoken ill of and blasphemed. The 
word katadpoveitwoav is somewhat surprising, and seems to show how far the feel- 
ing of the slaves, that Christianity destroyed all former distinctions, was sometimes 
carried. In the other passages referring to slaves, even in Tit. ii, 9 f., obedience, re- 
fraining from gainsaying and purloining, serving heartily and not with mere eye- 
service, etc., are the things spoken of —() The explanation of oi avtiAaufavépuevor as 
the subject of the clause in which it stands, is the simplest and most natural one. 
This clause thus becomes parallel with the preceding 67: clause—the slaves are 
not to despise the masters on the ground that the latter are brethren, but are to 
perform the duties of slaves to them because of this fact. In the word evepyeciac, 
however, the Apostle seems to give a hint of the feeling which the master should 
have towards the slave. He should regard the slave’s service as a evepyecia, a 
benefit or good deed rendered. Huther, Holtzm., and some others refer the evepy. 
to the masters, and make the words mean “ those who devote themselves to kind- 
ness towards you.” This is in accordance with the use of avr:Aau3. in most, if 
not all, cases of similar construction and reference in the classics. Wiesinger 
thinks Paul may have used the compound verb in a sense derived from its two 
component parts: receive in return, and that there may thus be a reference to a 
reciprocal relation between the master and the slave. 


XIX. Vv. 3-10. 


(a) W. and H., and Treg., like Tisch., Lachm., and Buttm., connect tavra ... 
wxapakéAer with the following paragraph. R. V., on the other hand, unites these 
2Hofmann, coinciding with Wiesinger’s science, brought them unawares on the 


view, says: “The occupation with that which wrong track ;” but the “unawares” is purely 
elaimed, but did not deserve, the name of imported into the verse. 


NOTES. 199 


words, as does Huther, with what precedes. Ell, Alf., Fairb., Holtzm., agree 
with R. V. and Huther, and this is, perhaps, the more correct view.—(b) The 
following passage is declarative, not hortatory. The Apostle turns—quite abruptly, 
if ravra k.7.A. is to be joined to the previous verses—to the subject of the errors 
and heresies once more. He here presents certain further characteristics of the 
false teachers, bringing out especially their avariciousness. It was not unnatural 
for the Apostle to close the epistle with this matter, with which he had opened it 
—making further statements respecting it, and urging Timothy to avoid the errors, 
and to give himself to the true doctrine and to the good fight of the faith.—(c) 
The verb tpoogpyerac (for which Tisch. 8th ed. alone among the textual editors 
reads tpooé yerat, following §& ), from the original sense of the word to come to— 
thus to come to, in order to visit to surrender, etc., passes, apparently, here to the 
meaning consent to, or agree with ; Tpooéyetat, in the middle voice, means to cling 
to, or, as Huther says, hold fast to. The latter has so little support that it can 
hardly be adopted, but it would seem to be the word which the Apostle would, in 
this connection, have been more likely to use—(d) In the word érepod:dacxarei 
the Apostle returns to the €érepodidacxadia of i. 3. Comp. also, tyiawoicy 
didackanic i. 10, with dy. Ady. These two correspondences, together with the fact 
that this subject mainly occupies the remainder of this chapter, make it probable 
that it was his design to close the letter with the same admonition and exhortation 
with which he had begun it, and thus to give a double emphasis to his words. 
The expression 77 kav’ evoéBerav didack, is, through the phrase pvorfpiov evoe3. of 
ili. 16, which contains the great central truth of the Christian doctrine, easily con- 
nected with the suggestion, which is found in i. 10, of the accordance of the 
healthful teaching with the gospel. The similarity in the expressions py émiord- 
fLevoc and juz voovvtec of i. 7, may, also, be noticed. Zyt#oeve and Aoyouayiac, also, 
unquestionably correspond with ¢yrjoec of i. 4. The clause beginning with é£ 
ov merely sets forth the results in feeling, disputation, wrangling, etc., which 
naturally follow from such ¢77. kai Aoy. The added words vouiGévtwy «.7.., accord- 
ingly, describe the peculiar characteristic of the erroneous teachers which is here 
made prominent, as distinct from and beyond what has been mentioned before. 
These words indicate avariciousness or, at least, that the persons spoken of 
regarded piety simply as a means of advancing themselves in worldly good; “a 
new business, an investment, a means of getting on in life,’ Plumptre, “a gain- 
ful trade,” Conybeare. In Tit. i. 11 similar teachers are referred to as teaching for 
the sake of base gain, an expression which seems to point to avariciousness on 
their part. The same thing would appear to be indicated here, by the fact that 
the Apostle goes on, in ver. 9 f., to speak of the desire to be rich and the love of 
money.—(e) With regard to particular words in vv. 4, 5, there can be little doubt 
that Huther’s explanation of BAacgyuia, ixévoia Tov., and dvataparpiBai is correct. 
Envy and strife were the first results, and these led to the other things which are 
mentioned. The words retigwrac and voov mepi Cythoetc Kai Aoy. are strikingly 
descriptive of skeptics, especially of intellectual skeptics, of all ages—(/) The 
gain mentioned in ver. 6, which appertains to piety when united with content- 
ment, is apparently the blessing in peace of mind, happiness, ete., which, when 
the man is sufficient for, and in, himself, in the sense of being independent of the 
riches, etc., of the world, he has through his piety. dp of ver. 7 gives the 
ground of the necessity and reasonableness of the adding of contentment to piety, 
when speaking of the latter as a source of great gain. The word 67/ov of this 


200 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


verse must, apparently, be rejected by reason of the great weight of manuscript 
evidence against it. The sentence becomes, with this omission, quite difficult. 
The suggestion of Buttm. (E. T. p. 358) that 67: alone may be equivalent to d7A0v 
ére seems doubtful. The expl. of de W. mentioned in Huther, with which R. V. 
perhaps agrees, is also a questionable one, both because of the use of 67 and the 
antecedent improbability that the writer would bring out the thought in this 
way; but it is, probably, the best one that can be offered.—(g) The contrast of 
ver. 9 with ver. 8, and the use of SovAduevor, “are minded to be rich,” as well as 
the word @Aapyvpia of ver. 10,show that the writer is referring to those who give 
themselves wholly, and to the entire exclusion of the avrapxeca just mentioned, to 
the work of acquiring riches. It is such @:Aapyvpia, which is a root of all evils. 
That pita necessarily means a root, as distinguished from the root, cannot be affirmed, 
because the article may disappear by reason of the fact that the word is in the 
predicate. That it, in all probability, has this meaning, however, can hardly be 
questioned, and it is not to be doubted that R. V. expresses the right idea of the 
sentence by rendering Tavtwy tov kaKkdv by all kinds of evil. Alf. insists that pifa 
means the root. Most of the recent commentators agree with R. V. 


XX. Vv. 11-21. 


(a) That of is contrasted with tivéc of ver. 10, and that tavra refers to the 
love of money, etc., just mentioned, is indicated by all the considerations which 
the passage suggests. That the expression “man of God” is not applied to 
Timothy as an official term, is rendered probable by the use of the same expres- 
sion in 2 Tim. iii. 17, where it clearly refers to the believer as a man of God. The 
fact that Timothy was a man of God should keep him from the course which was 
followed by these men who had gone astray, and should lead him to pursue that 
line of life to which God calls—(b) irouovn and rpairavera are, apparently, 
intended to be connected together—stedfast endurance, pressing on in spite of all 
trials or persecutions, was to be accompanied by gentleness of temper as related to 
the trials or to the authors of them. tpaizdVera is nearly equivalent to tpaérne, 
and may mean meekness or gentleness. Here it may, notimprobably, include both. 
_ —(e) Tov Kaddv ayova (ver. 12): Timothy is exhorted to do what, in 2 Tim. iv. 7, 
Paul declares himself, by the use of the same words, to have done. The Chris- 
-tian course, which is called orpareiay in i. 18, is here called ayova, a contest in the 

sense of the Greek games (comp. dpéyov, 2 Tim. iv. 7). \miorie does not here, 
or indeed in any place in the Past. Epp., as, also, it does not elsewhere in Paul’s 
writings, mean the system of faith, the doctrine believed by Christians. It 
always refers to subjective faith, though sometimes this is viewed subjectively, and 
sometimes in a more objective way—(d) The good confession which Timothy is 
said to have confessed (probably—by reason of the close connection with é«A7dn¢ 
(as Huther also says)—at the time of his baptism) was not in form, or precisely, 
the same with that made by Christ before Pilate. Indeed, Christ can scarcely be 
said, in the strict sense, to have confessed the good confession. This was what 
Timothy did; but Christ’s witnessing or confessing was through His acts and His 
general declarations made when He was on trial at Pilate’s tribunal. Huther is 
apparently correct, however, in making yaprupeiv-here substantially equivalent to 
ouodoyeiv, as against the view of EIl., Alf, Grimm, and others, that it means 
attest, bear witness to, by His sufferings and death. Holtzm. agrees with Huther, 


NOTES. 201 


If Huther’s view is correct, éti means before ; but if the view of Ell. is adopted, 
it may be rendered by wnder,—which meaning is given by him and de W. Alf, 
however, holds that, even with this latter explanation of “aprupeiy, the preposition 
means before.—(e) Typyjoa . . . méXpt Tic Exupaveiag points towards (though it may 
possibly be explained otherwise) an expectation that the ém@dveca would soon 
take place. The setting forth of this “appearance” as made visible by the power 
of God the Father is very distinct and emphatic in these verses, and the state- 
ments seem to represent it as a glorious manifestation in which both God and 
Christ have part, though the manifestation itself is here, as everywhere else, the 
émipavera TOV Xptorov, 

(f) Ver. 17. The aidv ovro¢ seems to be alluded to, here, in contrast to the 
érigaveca as the beginning of the aia wéAdAwv, It is spoken of however, primarily, 
in its contrast, as related to the character of its works, with the good works of the 
Christian life. The “éAAwv idea is brought out distinctly in ver. 19. In connec- 
tion with, and through these good works, they were to lay up for themselves, as a 
treasure, a good foundation on which to rest, that they might be able to lay hold 
upon that real life which belongs to the ai@v wéAAwv. The doctrine of good works 
as a ground of reward, but not as a ground of justification, is here indicated. 

(g) Whether tapadjKyv (ver. 20) refers to the dcaxovia or the didackadria bytaivovoa 
is uncertain ; but, as the contrast throughout the epistle seems to be between the 
latter and the erroneous teaching, it may be regarded as more probable that it is 
this which the Apostle means. The use of yvoovc here belongs to the later period 
of the life of Paul, rather than the earlier, but does not seem to carry us far 
beyond the time of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. 


202 ‘tHE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Tabhov 4 xpos Tipddcoy extatodn deutépa, 


A. al. have the shorter superscription: pig Tiudfeov B’; so, too, D E F G, 
but with dpyera: preceding. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. Tisch., on the authority of DE F G K P X&, al., several versions, and 
Fathers, adopted Xporov "Iycov instead of the Rec. "Iyoot Xpiorod (A L, pl. 
etc., Lachm. and Buttm.). For the singular érayyediav, § has the plural éray- 
yediac.—Ver. 3. To T@ Oe@ there is added yov in D* E 17, Sahid. Vulg. ed. 
Sixtin. Demidor. Clar. Germ. Or. Ambrosiast. etc. Imitation of Rom. i. 8.—Ver. 
4. The reading étvzo# (G, Boern. utrumq. Chrys.) seems only to have arisen 
from an endeavor to simplify the structure of the sentence.—Ver. 5. For AquBdavev 
(Rec. with D E K L, al., Chrys. Theodoret, etc.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. read 
AaBov, on the authority of A C F G 17, 31. This latter deserves preference as 
the more difficult reading, all the more that it is preceded by the present ézvzof@v, 
—Instead of Awid:, some ss. have Aoid:, others Awidy, and one Aaié:; still the 
Ree. is too strongly suported to leave doubts of its correctness. For Evvixy, several 
cursives have Evveixy.—Ver. 7.,deAiac] The reading Jdovdeiac (in 238, Aeth. 
Didym. Chrys.) has clearly arisen from Rom. viii. 15.—Ver. 11. é6vv (Tisch. 8 
omits) may possibly have been inserted on the analogy of 1 Tim. ii. 7 ; but since 
it is wanting only in A &, and some cursives, it is safer to regard it as the original 
reading, all the more that it is necessary for the meaning.—Ver. 12. In &, kai is 
wanting before tavra; all other mss., however, support its genuineness.—For 
rapakatabyjkny (Rec.), we must read here and at ver. 14, tapatjxyy, just as in 1. 
Tim. vi. 20.—The ov that follows is wanting in D* E and some cursives; it was 
probably omitted because in those two other passages no pronoun stands with the 
word.—Ver. 15. The mode of writing the name ®tyeAAo¢ varies very much; the 
best supported is @iyeAoc, which Lachm. and Tisch. adopted—For ‘Epyoyévyc, 
Tisch. has adopted ’Epyoyévyc, with the remark: testatur antiquissimus accentuum 
testis D*** ete.—Ver. 16. For éxyoyivty (Ree.), all uncials, except K, several cur- 
sives, also Basil. Oec. Theodoret, have éra:oyiv6y (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.) ; comp. 
Winer, p. 70 [E. T. p. 73].—Ver. 17. Tisch. 7 retained the Ree. oxovdardérepov, 
with D*** FE K L, al. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 adopted, ovovdaiwe, on the authority 
of C D* F GX, al.; Buttm. read oxovdaorépoc, on the authority of A. This 
last reading seems to be only a correction of the Ree. Which of the two others 
is the original one, cannot be decided. The positive may be considered a correc- 
tion of the comparative ; but, on the other hand, the latter is more usual with 
Paul than the former, which occurs with him only in Tit. iii. 18. Besides, the 
comparative is often found in Paul where we might except the positive (comp. 
1 Dir > iit. 4h) 


CHAP: i. 1-3: 203 


Vv.1,2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XXT., pages 218, 219.] Aca beA#patoc] comp. 
on 1 Tim. i. 1. [X XI a.]—The words of this address are peculiar: xar’ éray- 
yeriav Cuong tH év XpoT@ "Iyoov; they are not to be joined with GeAguaroc, 
nor with the following Tiwoé», but with ardctodog «7.4. ’Erayyedia in the 
N. T. constantly means “the promise ;” it is incorrect to translate it here 
by “preaching;” comp. 1 Tim. iv. 8. Its object is the Co7, the blessed 
life which “exists objectively, and is presented in Christ” (Wiesinger). 
The preposition «aré shows that Paul’s apostleship stands in connection 
with this promise. Matthies defines this connection more precisely 
by saying that xara denotes the harmony between the plan of salvation, 
of which that érayyed/a is the chief element, and the apostleship. But it 
is more natural, and more in accordance with the passage in Tit. i. 2, to 
explain it, as does Theodoret, followed by de Wette and Wiesinger: a7éc- 
ToAdv pe TpoEBaAeTo 6 Bede WoTE pe THY ExayyeAfeioay aidviov Cayv Toi¢ avOparore 
knpvEa, so that card directs attention to the purpose; see Winer, p. 376 
[E. T. p. 402]. Otto contends that xara means “for the purpose,” and 
that «ypigac should be supplied. He explains it more generally: ‘in the 
matter of, in regard to,” with the remark: “Paul means toe say that his 
apostolic office . . . in its entire work is defined by that promise.” This 
explanation, however, comes back substantially to the former one, since 
the work of the apostolic office is specially the xypicoev. Hofmann 
explains «ard as equivalent to “in consequence of,” in the sense, viz., that 
the promise of life forms the presupposition of Paul’s apostleship; but for 
this there is no support in usage; besides, it is self-evident that without 
that promise of life there would be no apostleship.—Ver. 2. Tipobém ayarnro 
téxvw | ayarnté, LX XI b.] in distinction from yvryciw, 1 Tim. i. 2 and Tit. 
i. 4, does not indicate a greater confidence, nor even blame, as if Timothy, 
by showing a want of courageous faith, no longer deserved the name 
(Mack). 

Ver. 3. [On Vv. 3-5, see Note XXITI., pages 219, 220.] Xdpw étyw 76 Oc] 
[XXII a.] As in several other epistles, Paul begins here with a thanks- 
giving to God,—only he usually says eiyapior or evdoyytic 6 Oedc. The 
expression is only in1 Tim. i. 12 (elsewhere in the N. T. Luke xvii. 9; 
Heb. xii. 28). To 76 Oe there is next attached the relative clause: © 
Aatpetw ard rpoydvwr év Kabapad ovvedjoe., Which is added because the apostle 
wishes to remind Timothy of his zpéyova, viz. his grandmother and 
mother,—not to bring into prominence a relationship different from the 
apostle’s own (Hofmann), but one corresponding with his own.—az7d rpoyévev 
[XXII 6.] is not equivalent to ad Bpédove, iii. 15; it means that the 
apostle serves God ‘‘in the manner handed down by his progenitors, as 
they had done ” (Buttm., p. 277 [E. T. 322]), or that the service of the zpéyo- 
vot, 7. €. not the ancestors of the Jewish people (Heydenr. and others), but 
the progenitors of the apostle himself (so most expositors), is continued 
in him, and denotes therefore “the continuity of the true honoring of 
God by Judaism ” (de Wette). Otto says that the expression is not to be 
referred to the education (Flatt) or disposition (Winer, p. 349 [E. T. p. 
372]; van Oosterzee, Wiesinger), but to the ancestral mode of worship; 


204 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


but, in reply, it is to be observed, that on account of év kabapa ovvedhoet 
the reference to disposition is by no means to be considered as excluded.) 
The apostle, by his conversion to Christianity, did not interrupt his con- 
nection with the Aarpevew of his ancestors, because it was a necessary 
condition of the new faith to honor the God of revelation whom the Jews 
served. This utterance regarding the apostle himself, and particularly 
the words év xadapa ovved., are.not in contradiction with 1 Tim. i. 13 and 
similar passages, since the apostle, even while he was zealous for the law, 
served the God of his fathers év xa. ovvecd., as little then as afterwards 
falsifying the revealed word with arbitrary fictions, which was done by 
the heretics; comp. Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 14 ff. Hofmann is wrong in 
breaking up the inner relation of these words, referring Aatpetw only to 
and mpoyéver, and not also év kal. cvverdjoer, Which he refers only to the 
apostle. This he does, although the structure of the sentence is most 
decidedly against such a distribution of the references——On év xa@. ovvewd., 
comp. 1 Tim. 1. 5.2—é¢ adid2eurrov k.7.2.] [XXII c.] o¢ doesnot give the reason 
of thanksgiving, as Chrysostom explains it: ebyapioré 7H Oe@, Ott uéuvnuai cov, 
gnoiv, obtw of giAG, and as Luther translates: ‘that I,” ete. Against this 
there is not only the word dc, but also the sense. The apostle, in his 
giving of thanks to God, often indeed recalls his wveia of those to whom 
he writes (Rom.i.9; Phil. i.3; 1 Thess. i.2; Philem. 4), but he never 
points them out as the ground of his thanksgiving. Otto, while granting 
that there are objections to it, wishes to take o¢ as the same as 67, and to 
regard it asa particle.of the reason, equivalent to é7¢ oitwe, which, how- 
ever, cannot be justified from usage. Just as little should we take dc 
adverbially with ada. Mack’: “I thank God, ete. ...I keep right 
continually,” ete—A subordinate clause begins with 6c, which, however, 
does not mean: “since, quippe, siquidem ” (Heydenreich, Flatt, Matthies : 
“in so far”), “so often” (Calvin: “ quoties tui recordor in precibus meis, 
id autem facio continenter, simul etiam de te gratias ago”), but expresses 
the parallel relation of the subordinate clause to the principal one, and 
should be translated by “as.” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) ; in Gal. vi. 10, 


1Had the apostle not been conscious that 
his ancestors had served God ev xa. cvvecs., 
he would not haye expressed himself as he 
does here. 

2Otto rightly: “With Paul ovveidyots is 
purely the self-consciousness of the subject. 
' The consciousness is pure, when it is con- 
scious of no impure strivings. Impurity 
appears whenever any one, under the pre- 
tence of serving God, follows aftor his own 
selfish purposes.” There is no ground for 
Hofmann’s assertion, that the xa@. cvveidnats 
is only “a conscience free from conscious- 
ness of guilt, such as only that man can have 
who is conscious of the forgiveness of his 
sins.” 

8Theé particle a does sometimes occur in 
classic Greek in such a way that it is resolv- 


able into ore ovrws; but, as is shown in the 
very nature of the word, only in cases when 
the sentence beginning with os expresses 
something surprising, something exciting . 
astonishment, in particular, therefore, after 
the verb @avydgw. It follows,as Pape says, 
s.v., that “in such cases we may translate it 
with the simple how.” ‘That such is the case, 
is proved by ‘all the quotations brought 
together by Otto (p. 301) from the Greek 
classics. It is therefore entirely erroneous for 
Otto to say quite generally that “it is in the 
manner of genuine Greek to contract the 
causal ore with the following otrws into the 
adverbial pronoun @s.”’ Only if the adcaAeurrov 
Exo THV rept gov pvecay occurred to the apos- 
tle as something strange, astonishing, could 
as be explained here by ote ovtws.—Besides, 


CHAP. I. 4. ; 205 
.* 

é¢ has a very similar meaning. The sense accordingly is: “ I thank God, 
as Iam continually mindful of thee in my prayers,” so that already in the 
subordinate clause it is indicated that the thanksgiving to God refers to 
Timothy. In Rom. i. 9, 6¢ stands in quite another connection, which 
makes de Wette’s objection all the less justifiable, that here it has been 
taken from that passage.—adiddeitt0ov Eyw TH Tepi cov preiav]| De Wette 
arbitrarily maintains that Paul would have said: adiaieitrw¢ pveiav cov 
Though Paul does so express himself in Rom. i. 9 (and simi- 
larly Eph. i. 16), it does not, however, follow that he might not use 
another form of expression in another epistle, especially since the con- 
nection of uveiav with yew is by no means unusual with him; comp. 
1 Thess. iii. 6.—adidAecr7ov stands first for emphasis. There is nothing 
strange here in pveia being joined with epi, since pracoda takes that con- 
struction even in the classics.—év rai¢ degceci wou vuKtoc Kal juépac] Taic is 
not to be supplied before vv«réc, since the last words are not to be taken 
with deyoeor, but either with adiad. éyw «.7.A. (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) 
or with what follows (Matthies, Plitt, Hofmann). The first construction 
is preferable, because the chief emphasis is laid on the preceding thought, 
the éxitodév being made subsidiary ; besides, the apostle had no particu- 
lar reason for directing attention to the uninterrupted duration of his 
longing for Timothy as the source of his unceasing prayer. The assertion, 
that vuxrdc Kai quépac is superfluous on account of the previous adidAeitrov, 
is not to the point; comp. Acts xxvi. 7, where the same words are added 
with év éxreveia. 

Ver. 4. As in Rom. i. 11, Phil. i. 8, and other passages, Paul also 
expresses here his longing to see the person to whom the epistle is 
addressed. The participle éz:zodév is subordinate to the previous éyw; to 
it, in turn, the next participle wexvyuévoc is subordinated. The longing for 
Timothy causes him to be continually remembered in the apostle’s prayers, 
and the remembrance is nourished by thinking of his tears.—sov tov 
daxptwv|] [XXII d.] By these are meant—as the verb peurnuévoc shows— 
not tears which “ Timothy shed” when at a distance from the apostle 
(Wiesinger), and of which he knew only through a letter (which Timothy 
therefore “shed by letter,” Hofmann) ; but the tears of which he himself 
had been witness, the tears which Timothy shed probably on his departure 
from him (van Oosterzee, Plitt). These were, to the apostle, a proof of 
Timothy’s love to him, and produced in him the desire of seeing Timothy 
again, that he might thereby be filled with joy. In this connection of the 
clauses with one another, the apostle has not yet given the object of 
thanks appropriate to the ydpw yw; he does not do so till ver. 52— 


TOLOVILAL, 





it is inaccurate for Otto to ascribe to as a 
causal signification, and then call the clause 


that it makes a subordinate participle peuvy- 
wévos depend on the subordinate participle 


beginning with it an objective clause. 
1Comp. Herod. i. 36; Plato, Lach. p. 181 A; 
Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 6. 12; so, too, with prnpo- 
veve.v, Heb. xi. 22. 
2 Against this view it cannot be maintained 


émtroav, for that is not in itself impossible; 
nor can it be said “that the insertion of a 
clause penvynuévos between idetv ge and iva 
is intolerable,” since the chief stress is not 
On Menvnuevos, but on émumoGav «.7.A. Further, 


206 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


According to Hofmann, the reason of the thanks is already given in the 
participial clause peuryuévoc. But the idea that Paul thanks God for 
Timothy’s tears, is out of all analogy with the other epistles of the apostle. 
Even the wa yapac rAqjpwdd is against this view, for the apostle could not 
possibly say that he remembers Timothy’s tears in order that he may be 
filled with joy. 
Ver. 5. ‘Yréuvrnow AaBov tHe «.7.A.] [XXII e.] This participial clause is to 
be taken neither with peyvnuévoc nor with éxizobav (de Wette, Leo); the 
sense forbids us to subordinate it to one of these ideas, and the want of 
the copula xai to co-ordinate it with them. Otto joins it with iva yapa¢ 
rAgpw8a: “that I may be filled with joy, as I (se. by thy personal presence 
in Rome) receive a renewal of my remembrance of thy unfeigned faith.” 
Against this construction, however, there are the following reasons :—(1) 
That to supply “by thy presence” is not only arbitrary, but does not suit 
with the idea tzéuryow AauBdvew, since the impression made on us by 
anything before the eyes cannot be described as reminding us of that 
thing. (2) That, if the remembrance of Timothy’s constancy in the faith 
is so unceasing with the apostle that he thanks God for it, itis quite incon- 
ceivable how he could still wish to receive a izéuryo of it. (3) That we 
see ourselves forced by it to prefer the reading AauBavev (which Tisch. 
adopted) to 2aBév.—The only remaining course is to connect trouv. af. 
with ydapw iyo tO Oe (so Wiesinger, Plitt, and others). It does stand at 
some distance from it, but that cannot be considered a good reason against 
the construction. The construction in Phil. i. 8-5 is similar. Nor can we 
make objection that “ Paul according to this view would not thank God be- 
cause Timothy stands in such faith, but because he has been brought to his 
recollection ” (Hofmann), for the participial clause does not give the reason 
of the thanksgiving directly, but only hints at it. It is the same here as at 
Eph. i. 15and Col.i.3, where, too, the subject of thanksgiving is not the axoter, 
but that which the apostle had heard.—izéuryow AaBov is not equivalent 
to “recordans, as I remember” (de Wette: “retaining the remem- 
brance ”’), for txéurqoc’ in the N. T. (comp. 2 Pet. i. 18, ii. 1; also Ecclus. 
_ xvi. 11;.2 Mace. vi. 17) has an active signification ; it is equivalent, there- 
fore, to “since I have received remembrance,” @. e. “since I have been 
-reminded” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is not said what 
had reminded the apostle of Timothy’s faith. Bengel supposes that it 
was externa quaedam occasio, or a nuntius a Timotheo ; Wiesinger, that it 
was Onesimus. But it suits better with the context to regard the tears 
just mentioned as causing the recollection, inasmuch as they were to the 
apostle a proof of his unfeigned faith. It is unnecessary to derive the 
bréurnore from some inner working of the apostle’s soul (so formerly in 
this commentary); there is no hint of any such thing. The present 
AauBdvov is not against this interpretation, since these tears came so vividly 
before the apostle’s soul that he was thereby reminded more and more of 


it cannot provoke objection that Timothy’s see him again, since these were a proof of his 
tears nourished in the apostle the longing to love—and of his faith. 


CHAP. I. 5, 6. 207 


Timothy’s faith.—rijc¢ év coi avuroxpitov zictews] see 1 Tim. i. 5; this, now, 
is the subject of the thanksgiving——As Paul is conscious that the God 
whom he serves was the God also of his ancestors, he can remind Timothy 
of the fact that the faith which dwells in him was before the possession 
of his grandmother and mother.’—7rv¢ évesxyoe mpatov] évorxeiv as in ver. 
14; Rom. viii. 11; 2 Cor. vi. 16. The word is chosen here “to denote 
faith on its objective side as a possession coming from God” (Wiesinger), 
and it declares that “it has not become a merely transient feeling, but an 
abiding principle of life dwelling in them” (van Oosterzee).—zpérav is 
not, with Luther, to be translated by “ before,” but to be taken in its proper 
meaning, in reference to the zpéyove. of Timothy. The point brought out 
is, that Timothy was not the first of his family to be a believer, but we 
cannot press the point so far as to suppose that a distinction is drawn 
between the apostle whose ancestors served God as Jews, while Timothy’s 
ancestors were heathen (so Hofmann).—év rH wayyy cov «.7.2.] Regarding 
paupyn, see Wahl on the passage.—This grandmother of Timothy is not 
mentioned elsewhere. Of the mother, it is said in Acts xvi. 1 ff. that she 
Was a yur "lovdaia miorH; her name is given only here. The mention of 
the two is not to be regarded as a superfluous—or even surprising—after- 
thought. Paul might repose in Timothy all the greater confidence, that 
he, brought up by a pious mother, had before him her example and that 
of his grandmother.—This confidence the apostle expresses still more 
definitely in the next words: wéresowat dé, bt Kat év coi, With which Hey- 
denreich wrongly supplies évockjoec instead of évorkei. 

Ver. 6. [On Vv. 6-14, see Note XXIII., pages 220-222.] Av fv aitiav avay- 
pvqoxw oe x.7.A.] This verse contains the chief thought of the whole chap- 
ter. By 6? fv aitiav (a formula which occurs in Paul only here, at ver. 12, 
and at Tit. i. 18; aizia not at all in the other Pauline epistles), the apostle 
connects his exhortation with the previous xézepar «.7.7., smce his con- 
viction of Timothy’s faith was the occasion of his giving the exhortation. 
There is no ground for the objection raised by Otto against this connec- 
tion of thought, that aitia “never expresses anything but the external 
objective occasion ;” he is no less wrong in wishing to refer 6” jv airiav 
not to avayiuvgckw, but to avatworrpeiv. In that case’the apostle would have 
written 60 fv aitiay avalwriper k.7.2. (as Otto explains the expression). The 
verb avayuimvgoxew, properly, “remind of something,” contains in itself the 
idea of exhorting; the apostle finely interprets the word so as to make 
Timothy appear himself conscious of the duty which was urged on him; 
irouuvgoxer is Often used exactly in this way.—davalwrupeiv rd ydpiopua Tov 


1Since Timothy’s avumoxpitos miatis is 


yovo. cannot be taken further than on the 
Christian faith, faith in Jesus Christ, it is 


part of the apostle’s mpdoyovor.” The apostle 


manifestly wrong to regard the miorts of the 
grandmother and mother as only faith in the 
O. T. promise (Otto); the relative j7us shows 
that the two are identical. From Paul’s 
ascription to himself of a Aatpevew amo mpo- 
yovwv, we cannot infer, with Otto, that the 
“matter of faith on the part of Timothy’s zpo- 


does not at all boast of the mics of his 
ancestors, but says merely that he serves the 
same God as they had served. Timothy’s 
faith could only mean something to him, if it 
was not only faith in the promise, but also 
faith in Him who had appeared according te 
the promise. 


208 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 

Gcov] [XXIII a.] avafwrupeiv: az. Aey.: “fan into life again.”!? By yapiopa 
7. 9. is meant here, as in 1 Tim. iv. 14, the fitness (ikavéryc) bestowed by 
God on Timothy for discharging the épyov evayyedsor00 (iv. 5), Which fitness 
includes both the capacity and also (though Hofmann denies this) zeal 
and spirit for official labors. The context shows that the courage of a 
Christian martyr is here specially meant. This rappycia is not the work 
of man, but the gift of God’s grace to man. It can only be kept alive 
unceasingly by the labor of man.2_ Bengel is not incorrect in remarking 
on this exhortation: videtur Timotheus, Paulo diu carens, nonnihil 
remisisse ; certe nunc ad majora stimulatur. His former zeal seems to 
have been weakened, particularly by the apostle’s suffering (ver. 8), so 
that it needed to be quickened again.* Otto here, too, understands by 
xapicoua, the “ right of office ;” but this does not accord with the verb ava- 
Cwrvpeiv, since the right did not need to be revived. However Timothy 
might conduct himself in regard to the right imparted to him, it remained 
always the same; if he did not exercise it as he should have done, he 
himself or his activity needed the avalwrupeiv, but not the right which had 
been delivered to him with the office4 On the next words: 6 éorw év oot 
Sia tHe Exibécewe TOV Ye—pov yov, comp. 1 Tim.iv.14. There can be no reason 
for doubting that the same act is meant in both passages. As to the diffi- 
culty that, whereas in the former passage it was the presbytery, here 
it is Paul who is said to have imposed hands, see the remark on that pas- 
sage. The reason for this lies both in the character of the epistle, “ which 
has for its foundation and in part for its subject the personal relation 
between the apostle and Timothy,” as well as in Paul’s exhortation to 
Timothy in ver. 8, “to make the gift an effective agent for him through 
whom the gift was received ”’(Wiesinger). 

Ver. 7. The exhortation in ver. 6, Paul confirms by pointing to the 
spirit which God has given to His own people: ot yap dwxev juiv 6 Osd¢ 
mvebua decdiac| [XXIII b.] By juiv, Otto understands not Christians in gen- 
eral, but the apostle and Timothy in particular as office-bearers. The 
context, however, does not demand such special reference, since the 
apostle, in order to confirm his exhortation to Timothy, might very well 


. 


1Gomp. Jamblichus, De Vit. Pyth. chap. think that we cannot infer from it that there 


XVi.: aveCwarvper TO Beto ev avTn. 

2Chrysostom: Set gov mpo8vsutas mpos 70 
xdpicpa Tov @cod:... ev nuiv yap ott Kat 
oBéoat, kat avaijar TOTO: UTd Mev yap paduptas 
kal axndias oBévvuTat, Uo Sé vyWews Kal mpooc- 
ox7s Sveyetpetac. 

2It has been already remarked (Introd. 3 
3, p. 27) that Otto is not justified in accusing 
Timothy of having almost laid down his office 
through anxiety and timidity. It isa part of 
this accusation that Otto here finds it said 
that “ Timothy was to resume the duties de- 
livered to him by the apostolic laying on of 
hands.”—The meaning of avagwrvpety is mis- 
taken by van Oosterzee and Pilitt, if they 


had been an actual decrease of Timothy’s 
official zeal. 

4Otto contends, that “along with the office, 
when the hands were laid on him, Timothy 
received the understanding, the personal 
gifts for filling it.” Against this it iS to be 
remarked—(1) That the natural talents are 
not bestowed along with the office, but the 
conscious and intentional concentration and 
employment of them in the office, otherwise 
the receiver of the office is only a dead 
machine in it; and (2) that the apostle, in 
laying on hands, acted as the instrument ot 
the Holy Spirit; and of this Timothy was alse 
aware. 


CHAP. I. 7. 209 


appeal to a fact which had been experienced by Christians in general as 
well as by himself. Besides, the juac in ver. 9 is against Otto’s view. 
IIvevpa here is either—(1) the objective spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ben- 
gel, Heydenreich, Otto), of whom it is first said negatively that it is not a 
spirit of devdia, 7. e. not a spirit producing decA/a in man, and then positively 
that it is a spirit of diva «.7.4., 7. e. a Spirit imparting divawe to man; or 
(2) rvevua is the subjective condition of man, the spiritual life wrought in 
him by the Spirit of God (Mack, Matthies, Leo, similarly, too, Hofmann’), 
which is then described more precisely as a spirit, not of devaia, but of 
divayuc x.7.A. The context in which the similar passage in Romans stands, 
and especially the passage corresponding to this in Gal. iv. 6, make the 
first view preferable.—de:2ia denotes timidity in the struggle for the king- 
dom of God; comp. John xiv. 27; Rey. xxi. 7, 8—The ideas divayc, ayarn, 
and cugpovicuéc are closely related to each other. That the Christian, as a 
warrior of God, may rightly wage the warfare to which he is appointed, 
he needs first divayc, 7. €. power, not only to withstand the attacks of the 
world, but also to gain an increasing victory over the world. He has 
need next of aydz7, which never suffers him to lose sight of the goal of the 
struggle, 7. e. the salvation of his brethren, and urges him to labor towards 
it with all self-denial. Lastly, he has need of cw@povicude. While Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact leave it uncertain whether this word is to be 
taken intransitively, reflectively, or transitively,? later expositors (Hof- 
mann too: “ discretion”) have taken it as synonymous with cwdpocivn;* 
de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt make it reflective, “ self-control” 
(properly, therefore, “the cwdpdoc directed towards oneself”). Neither 
explanation, however, can be justified by usage. Etymology and usage 
are decidedly in favor of the transitive meaning, which therefore must be 
maintained, with Otto, unless we attribute to the apostle a mistake in the 
use of the word. In itself the Holy Spirit might be called rveiua cwopo- 
vionov in the other sense, since the owdpovifev is His characteristic, He prac- 
tises it; but, as the preceding genitives denote effects, and not qualities, 
of the spirit, the genitive cwgporvcuot would stand to zvetya in a relation 
differing from that of the other genitives. The Holy Spirit can therefore 
receive such a designation here, only in so far as He produces the cwd¢povi- 
few (comp. Tit. ii. 4) in the Christian, 7. e. impels him not to remain inac- 
tive when others go wrong, but to correct them that they may desist. 
Thus taken, the idea of cagporoude appropriately includes that of ayazry, 
part of which is to be active in amending the unhappy circumstances of 
the church,—here all the more appropriately because the thought which 
is true of all Christians is specially applied here to Timothy.‘ 


1Hofmann, to a certain extent, combines secpacuds quty emcyévntar, mpds cwdpovicpov 
the two, saying: “The spirit which we have _— rodrov Sexumue8a: H twa Kai aAAots Guev gwhpo- 
received is, looking to its source, the Spirit vioTat. 


of God; but, looking to what we become 3 Thus Augustine, ad Bonif. iv. chap. 5: con- 
through it, it becomes in us the spirit of our tinentia; Vulgate: sobrietas; Beza: sanitas 
life thus created.” animi;. Leo: temperantia. 

2Theophylact: # twa cadppoves Guev' .. . 7 4The explanation here given of cwdporcpuds 


iva owhpovicpov exwuey TO TVEDMA, Kay TIS is in substantial agreement with that pro 


14 


210 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 

Ver. 8. M7 oiv (deduction from what has preceded: since God has given 
us the spirit of divayec x.7.2., then, etc.) éxacxvvOj¢ Td wapripwod Tod Kupiov 
juav] [XXIII c.] On the construction, comp. Rom. i. 16: ov éxawyxivoua rd 
evayyéAtov.—papripior, like waprupetv in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does not denote the 
martyrdom of Christ, nor even specially the testimony regarding the 
martyr-death of Christ (Chrysostom : 7 aicyivou, dtu tov éotavpwuévov Knpio- 
cevc), but more generally the testimony regarding Christ, which certainly 
includes the other special meaning. Kvpiov is not the subjective genitive,! 
but the objective*—The connection between this and the preceding 
thought is brought out by Bengel’s words: timorem pudor comitatur; 
victo timore, fugit pudor malus.—y7dé éué tov désuiov aitov] Paul places 
himself in immediate connection with the gospel, as he was a prisoner 
because of his witness of Christ; and the reason of the special mention of 
himself lies in the summons to Timothy to come to him at Rome? Paul 
calls himself décueoc Xpiorod here and at Eph. iii. 1, Philem. 9, because he 
bore his bonds for Christ’s sake; or better, because “ Christ (Christ’s cause) 
had brought him into imprisonment and was keeping him there ” (Winer, 
p- 178 [E. T. p.189]; Meyer on Eph. iii. 1; Wiesinger). The expression in 
Philem. 13: deouoi rot evayyediov, forbids the explanation: “a prisoner 
belonging to Christ.” Hofmann is inaccurate: “a prisoner whose bonds 
are part of his relation to Christ.”—aa2d ovyxaxowdOyjoov 7O evayyeriw] “ but 
suffer with (sc. me) for the gospel ;” the verb, occurring only here and per- 
haps at ii.3 (the simple form at ii. 9, iv. 5; Jas. v. 18), is limited more 
precisely by the reference to the previous éué. Luther (“suffer with the 
gospel, as I do”’) refers the ovv to the dative following; but against this 
there is the unsuitable colloéation of person and thing. The dative ra 
evayy. is to be taken as dativus commodi,’ as in Phil. i. 27 : cvvabAowrec rH 
miore Tov evayyediov; in Heb. xi. 25: cvyxaxovyeicbac 76 Aa@, the dative has 
another meaning.—xara divauw Oeov] [XXIII d.] These words do not be- 
long, as Heinrichs thinks possible, to 76 evayyediw, in the sense: doctrina 
cui inest divauic Ocov, but to the preceding verb. The meaning, however, 
is not: “strengthened through God’s aid ” (Heydenreich), but xara denotes 
- the suitability : “in accordance with the power of God which is effectual 
in thee,” or “which will not fail thee” (Hofmann). Abvauic Oeov is not 
here “the power produced by God,” nor is it “God’s own power ” (Wies- 
inger), in the sense of an abstract idea apart from its actual working -in 
the believer. 


posed by Otto, except that Otto regards the 
owdpovicpuos as a work, official in kind. 

1 Wahl: testimonium quod dixit Jesus de 
rebus divinis quas audivit a Patre; Hof- 
mann: “the truth of salvation witnessed by 
Christ.” Hofmann for this explanation 
appeals wrongly to 1 Cor. i. 6, ii. 1; besides, 
Maptupioy does not mean “ truth of salvation,” 
unless it is so defined. 

3 De Wette, Wiesinger. 

3 Wiesinger: “Here the twofold contents 
ef the epistle are set forth as the theme; for 


the contents of the epistle are simply the gen. 
eral duties laid on Timothy as a preacher of 
the gospel; and the particular service of love 
which he was to render to the imprisoned 
apostle.” 

*Chrysostom rightly says: ovyxaxora@naor, 
dyno, TO evayyeAiw, ovX ws TOD EvVayyeAtou 
kaxoraQovvtos, adAa Tov maOnTny Sdreyecpwr 
Umép Tov evayyeAiov magxeLv. 

5 Mack, Matthies, Wiesinger, van Ooster- 
zee, Plitt, Hofmann. 


CHAP, <r Sy 9: 211 


Ver. 9. In the series of participial and relative clauses which here fol- 
low each other in the Pauline manner, the apostle details the saving 
works of God’s grace, not so much “ to bring into prominence the divayec 
Gcov ” (Wiesinger), as to strengthen the exhortation in ver. 8.—roi cécavroc 
jac Kai Karécavtuc KAgoee ayig] This thought is closely related to the one 
preceding, since the mention of the divine act of love serves to give 
strength in working and suffering for the gospel—The «a2eiv is placed 
after the oafew, because the salvation of God, the curypia, is imparted to 
man by God through the call. The thought is to be taken generally of 
all Christians, and not merely to be referred to Paul and Timothy, as 
several expositors think, at the same time explaining «Ajovc of the special 
call to the office of Christian teacher (Heydenreich)—KAjore in the N. T. 
constantly denotes the call to partake in the kingdom of God, the call 
being made outwardly by the preaching of the gospel, inwardly by the 
influence of the spirit working through the word. K2jow and xateiv are 
similarly joined in Eph. iv. 1—The added ayia defines the «Ajove more pre- 
cisely in its nature, not in its working (de Wette, “ hallowing”’).—In order 
to denote the oéfew! and xadeiv as purely acts of God’s grace, and thus set 
the love of God in clearer light, Paul adds the words: ot xara ra Epya jar, 
aaja x.t.2. The first clause is negative, declaring that our works were not . 
the standard (xara) of that divine activity (comp. Tit. iii. 5). The second 
clause is positive, setting forth the principle by which alone God has 
guided himself. De Wette is inaccurate in explaining xa7d as giving the 
motive; that is not given by xazv4, but by é¢; comp. Rom. ix. 11. The 
only rule for God in the work of redemption is God’s idia zpéfeoue ; comp. 
on this Rom. viii. 28 f.; Eph. i. 11; Tit. ii. 5: xara rv airov eZeov. “Idco¢ 
is here emphatic, in order to show that this his purpose has its ground in 
himself alone.2—xai yapw zi dofeicay juiv év XpiotS “Inoot xpd ypdvov aiwvior] 
[XXIII e.] By this addition still greater emphasis is laid on the thought 
contained in the previous words, since the idia xpéfecie is called a yapec 
which has been already given us in Christ zpd ypdvev aiwviov. It is natural 
to take zpé ypév. aiwv. as identical with xpd rév aidéver, 1 Cor. ii. 7 (Eph. i. 4: 
mpo kataBo2qc Kéopov), 7. e. to regard it as a term for eternity, since the ypéve 
aiévo are the times beginning with the creation (so hitherto in this com- 
mentary). Heydenreich and others with this view explain dédovac as 
equivalent to “destinare, appoint;”’ but as the word does not possess this 
meaning, it is better to adhere to the idea of giving, but in an ideal signifi- 
cation, “in so far as that which God resolves in eternity is already as good 
as realized in time” (de Wette).  *Ev Xpior6 "Ijoov, which is attached im- 
mediately to dofeicav, denotes Christ Jesus as the mediator through whom 
grace is imparted to us, but in such a way that Christ’s mediatorship is 
regarded as one provided by God before time was. But the expression 


1De Wette’s assertion, that with Paul God “purpose;” see Rom. i. 13; Eph. i. 9, 11. 
is never the Saviour, is contradicted by 1 3 Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 232, puts 
Cor. i. 21. forward the explanation: “It is the eternal 
2 Tpé@coxs, as Wiesinger rightly remarks, is conduct of God the Father to the Son, in 
not equivalent to “foreordination,” but to | which and with which there is given to us 


212 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


mpo xpov. aw. may be otherwise taken. In Tit.i. 2, it clearly has a weaker 
signification, viz. “from time immemorial” (similarly Luke i. 70: az’ 
aiavoc). Ifthe expression be taken in that way here, dofeicav may be ex- 
plained in the sense that to us the ydapec is already given in the promise 
(Tit. i. 2 also refers to God’s promise); so Hofmann. In that case, how- 
ever, év Xpior@ "Ijoot is not to be taken in the sense of mediation, which 
does not agree with the addition of ’Ijcov to Xpiord, but as Hofmann ex- 
plains it: “ry 606. ju. év XpiorG "Inood denotes that the grace given us was 
given that Christ Jesus might be given us; He, however, has been given 
us from the beginning of time, when God promised the Saviour who was 
to appear in the person of Jesus.” This view (especially on account of 
Tit. i. 2) might be preferred to the one previously mentioned. As con- 
trasted with xara ra épya juév, stress is to be laid on zpd ypdveu aiwviov. If 
the imparting of the grace is eternal (resting on the eternal counsel of 
God), it is all the less dependent on the works of man. 

Ver. 10. eavepaeicav dé viv] These words form a contrast with ri 
dofeicavy . . . Tpd pdr. aiwv., the grace being concealed which was bestowed 
on Christians in Christ before the ages. It is to be observed that the idea 
of the ¢avépwore does not refer here to the decree, but to the grace of God; 
Heydenreich is therefore inaccurate in saying that “the gavepotv here de- 
notes the execution of the divine decree which was made from eternity, 
and has now come forth from its concealment.” The means by which 
the ¢gavépwore of the divine grace has been made, the apostle calls the 
Emipavera Tov owTHpoc Huav Xpiotov "Iqoov. ’Eni@aveca is used only here to 
denote the appearance of Christ in the flesh. Asa matter of course (so, 
too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, and others), it denotes not only the birth of 
Christ, but also His whole presence on the earth up to His ascension. 
There is added rot cwtzpo¢c jyudv in reference to Tov cdcavtoc yuac, Ver. 9, in 
order to make it clear that the grace eternally given to us was made mani- 
fest by the appearance of Christ Jesus, because He appeared as our corp 
(see on 1 Tim. i. 1). The means by which He showed Himself to be this, 
and by which He revealed that grace, are told us in the two participial 
3 clauses: Katapyfoavtoc mév Tov Oavatov, dwticavtoc 6& Cunv Kai adfapaiav dia Tov 
. evayyediov. [XXIII f.]—xarapyeiy, properly, “make ineffectual,” means here, 
as in 1 Cor. xv. 26, Heb. ii. 14, “ bring to nought.” Odvaroc is death, as the 
power to which man is, for his sins, made subject, both for time and for 
eternity. It is not the “prince of the realm of the dead,” as Heydenreivh 
thinks (also in Heb. ii. 14 there is a distinction between @dvaro¢ and 
duaBor0c). Still less to the point is the hypothesis of de Wette, that the 
katapyeiv Tov Bdvarov is spoken “ with subjective reference to the power of 
death over the mind, or the fear of death ;” the discussion here is not of 
subjective states of feeling, but of objective powers. The question whether 


who are in Christ the grace of God eternally ;” and that every position of the individual is 
but he has since withdrawn it—Wiesinger grounded on this eternal grace presented to 
remarks that the mpo@ears is not to be under- the world in Christ; but this limitation is ia 
stood of a purpose in reference to individuals, no way indicated by the context. 

but of the purpose in reference to the world, 


CHAP. 1. 10-12. 213 


@avaroc means here physical or eternal death, may be answered in this 
way, that the apostle regards the two as one in their inner relation to one 
another. The second clause: gwticarvto¢g dé x.7.2., corresponds with the 
first: katapy. «.7.A. wrifew has usually the intransitive signification : 
“shine,” Rev. xxii. 5; but it occurs also as transitive, both in the literal and 
derivative sense, Rev. xxi. 23, John i. 9. In 1 Cor. iv. 5, it is synonymous 
with gavepoiv: “bring to light from concealment ;” so, too, in Ecclus. xxiv. 
30, and in this sense it is used here. The expression is all the more 
pointed that @dvaroc is ““a power of darkness” (Wiesinger) ; comp. Luke 
i. 79.—Heydenreich’s explanation: “Christ raised the hope of immor- 
tality to fullest certainty,” weakens the apostle’s meaning. (4 denotes 
the blessed life of the children of God, which is further described as 
eternal, ever-during, by the epexegetical «ai agHapsia (Wiesinger). This 
life was originally hid in God, but Christ brought it to light out of conceal- 
ment, and brought it dia tov ebayyediov. These added words are to be re- 
ferred only to the second clause, for the annihilation of death was not 
effected by the gospel, but by Christ’s death and resurrection——On the 
other hand, the revelation of life was made by the preaching of the gospel, 
inasmuch as Christ thereby places before us the Cw kai agGapoia as the in- 
heritance assigned us in Him.—It is incorrect, with Wiesinger, to separate 
dua tov evayyediov from the nearest verb to which it is thoroughly suited if 
taken in a natural sense, and to connect it with the more distant gavepwbei- 
ca, the means of which, moreover, is already given in dia rie Emipaveiac. 
Plitt wrongly thinks that the construction here is somewhat careless, and 
that dia 7. evayy. is to be co-ordinated with d:a rH éripaveiac, giving a still 
more precise definition to gavepwbeioar. 

Ver. 11. Eic 6 éré0yv «.7.4.] With these words the apostle turns to his 
office and his suffering in his office, in correspondence with jydé éué 7. déou. 
avrov, ver. 8. The relative 6 does not refer to the thoughts expressed in 
the previous verses, but to evayyediov: “for which,” i.e. in order to preach 
it. Comp. the parallel passages in 1 Tim. ii. 7. 

Ver. 12. Av jv airiav (see on ver. 6) refers to what immediately precedes: 
“therefore, because I am appointed apostle.” [XXIII g.J—xai raira 
maoyw] goes back to ver. 8. Kai expresses the relation corresponding to 
what was said in ver. 11.—a2? obx éxacybvouac] viz. of the sufferings; said 
in reference to uy obv érayvrfjc in ver. 8. Imprisonment is to me not a 
disgrace, but a katyyua; comp. Rom. v. 3; Col.i. 24. The apostle thereby 
declares that his suffering does not prevent him from preaching the 
aptiptov Tov Kupiov (ver. 8) as a K#pvé K.7.2. The reason is given in the next 
words: oida yap @ wexiotevka. Heydenreich inaccurately: “I know Him on 
whom I have trusted ;” de Wette rightly : “ I know on whom I have set 
my trust.”—This is defined more precisely by: kat réretouar, bre dvvardg 
gore k.T.A., Which words are closely connected with those previous, in the 
sense: I know, that He in whom I trust is mighty, ete—The confidence 


1 Wiesinger: “ Death as the power to which makes the bodily death the precursor of 
the whole man, both body and soul, has fallen death eternal.” 
@ prey in consequence of sin, and which 


214 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


that God can keep His rapafjxy, is the reason of his ovk érawyxiveoba 
With oida . . . Kai rérevopat, comp. Rom. xiv. 14; with ore duv. gore, comp. 
Rom. xi. 23, xiv. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 8—On the meaning of rv rapabjxyy 
[XXIILh.] (Ree. rapaxarabpxyy) wov, expositors have spoken very arbitrarily.* 
—The same substantive occurs again at ver. 13; so, too, at 1 Tim. vi. 20.— 
It is hardly possible to imagine that Paul in ver. 14 should have meant 
something else by wapajxy than he means here; all the less that he con- 
nects the same verb with it in both passages. Though here we have pov, 
and God is the subject, still the supposition is not thereby justified. The 
genitive “ov may either be subjective or objective. In the former case, 7 
rapa. yov is something which Paul has entrusted or commended to God; 
in the latter, something which God has entrusted to Paul, or laid aside for 
him (a deposit destined for him). With the former view Hofmann under- 
stands by rapafjxy the apostle’s soul which he has commended to God; 
but there is nothing in the context to indicate this. Hofmann appeals to 
Ps, xxxi. 6; but against this it is to be observed that nothing can justify 
him in supplying the idea of “soul” with the simple word zapa6jxy.— 
With the latter view of the genitive, Wiesinger understands by it the Coy 
kai a@bapoia (iv. 8: 6 diKacocbvyc otépavoc) already mentioned ; so, too, Plitt ; 
van Oosterzee, too, agrees with this view, though he, without good grounds, 
explains ov as a subjective genitive. Against this interpretation there is 
the fact that with the sentence eic 6 éré6yv the apostle’s thought has already 
turned from the fw «ai agfapcia to his diaxovia, The following interpreta- 
tion suits best with the context: for what other reason could there be for 
the apostle’s oi éxaicyivoua than the confidence that God would keep the 
dvaxovia in which, or for whose sake, he had to suffer, would keep it so 
that it would not be injured by his suffering.—It is less suitable to under- 
stand by the rapatjxy the gospel, because the pov, pointing to something 
entrusted to the apostle personally, does not agree with this. By adding 
cic éxeivyy thy juépav, the apostle sets forth that the zapajxy is not only 
kept “till that day” (Heydenreich, Wiesinger, Otto *), but “for that day,” 


1Theodoret says: mapakaTabyKny, Hh TV 


miotw dyot Kat TO KYpYyLa, ] TOvS TLOTOUS, 
ovs mapeeTo a’T@ 6 Xpiotos 7H os avTos Tape- 
Gero TO Kupiw, H TapakatabyKynv Aeyer THY 
avTipicbiav. 

2 Wiesinger adduces three counter-reasons 
—(1) in ver. 14 @vAacoew Is represented as 
Timothy’s business, here as God’s; (2) in ver. 
14 rapaéyxy refers to the doctrine, here it is 
represented as a personal possession; (3) in 
ver. 14 he is discussing the right behavior 
for Timothy, here the confidence in the right 
behavior. But against the first reason, it is 
to be observed that @vddocew of every gift of 
grace is the business both of God and of the 
man to whom it is entrusted; in ver. 11 it is 
expressly said, Sua mvevpatos ayiov. Against 
the second reason, it may be urged that to in- 
terpret mapaéyxy of doctrine in ver. 14 is at 


least doubtful; but even if it were correct, 
still the gospel, too, might be regarded as 
something given personally to the apostle ; 
comp. 1 Tim. i. 11: ro evayyéAcov . . . 
TevOnv eyo; Rom. ii. 16: To evayyeAcov pov. 

Against the third reason, it may be said that 

no one ean really keep the blessing entrusted 

to him without having confidence that God © 
keeps it for him, and no one can have this 

confidence without himself preserving the 

blessing (da mv. aycov). 

3 Otto wrongly uses this passage to support 
his assertion that in this epistle “there is no 
trace to be found of forebodings and expecta- 
tions of death.” He says: “If Paul has con- 
fidence in the Lord, that he can maintain for 
him the rapa6yxy till the mapoveia, he must 
also have hoped that his official work would 
not be interrupted by his bodily death, since 


6 émuo- 


CHAP. I. 13, 14. 215 


i. e. that it may be then manifested in its uninjured splendor. The 
phrase ékeivy 7 quépa is equivalent to 7 juépa tod Xpwrov, “the day of 
Christ’s second coming”; it is found also in ver. 18, iv. 8, 2 Thess. i. 10, 
and more frequently in the Gospels. On the meaning of the preposition 
eic, comp. Meyer on Phil. i. 10. 

Ver. 13. Exhortation to Timothy—irorirwow Eye tyrawdvtwv Adywv, dv 
«.t.A.] For irotixwore here, as in 1 Tim. i. 16, “type” is to be retained. 
There is no reason for explaining the word here by “sketch” (Flatt), 
or docendi forma et ratio (Beza), or a written sketch given by the apostle 
to Timothy (Herder). Timothy is to carry with him the words he had 
heard from Paul as a type, i.e. in order to direct his ministry according to 
it. Luther translates izorizwo«¢ by “ pattern” (so, too, de Wette, Wie- 
singer, and others), but the reference thus given is not in the words them- 
selves. The verb éyew stands here in the sense of xaréyew.! It is incor- 
rect, with Hofmann, to take ior. tyaw. Aédyov as the predicate of the 
object, and to assume accordingly that it is a contracted form for trorizu- 
ow éxe bylawévtTwv Adyov THY broTiTwow TOV Adywr Ov K.T.A. Such a contrac- 
tion is inconceivable, nor does Hofmann give any instance to prove its 
possibility. The words év rq riote: kai ayary ti «.7.A., Which are neither 
to be joined with jxovcac, nor, with Hofmann, referred to what follows, show 
that the éyew does not take place externally, but is an effort of memory. 
’Ev is not equivalent to “with” (Heydenreich); the ior and aydrn are 
rather regarded as the vessel, in which Timothy is to keep that type. 
The added words: ty év Xpiorg "Ijoov, which go only with aya» (de Wette, 
Wiesinger, Hofmann), mark the Christian character of the love which 
Paul desires from Timothy : “the love grounded in Jesus Christ;’’ comp. 
1 Tim.i.14. On the expression doy. ty., comp. 1 Tim.i.10. The article 
is wanting, “‘ because this expression had become quite current (like véyo¢ 
and others) with the author” (de Wette, Wiesinger)—Why this exhorta- 
tion, as de Wette thinks, gives Timothy a low place, we cannot under- 
stand; every appearance of such a thing disappears when it is remembered 
that the apostle, grey-headed and near his end, is speaking to his pupil 
and colleague after enduring painful experience of the unfaithfulness of 
others, to which unfaithfulness he returns afterwards—Even de Wette 
wrongly asserts that this verse has no connection with the one preceding; 
for Paul has been speaking of himself and of the gospel entrusted to him, 
with the desire that Timothy should always keep in mind his example. 

Ver. 14. The exhortation in this verse is most closely connected with 
that.in ver. 18, for rapadjxn here, as in ver. 12, is the ministry of the gos- 
pel.—ryv Kxadjv rapadhny gbAagtov] 7 Kary rapadijxn is, like 4 KaAy didacxaria, 
1 Tim. iv. 6; 6 kaddg ayer x.7.2., to be taken in a general objective sense. 
There is no sufficient reason for interpreting rapa%jxn otherwise than in 
ver. 12—whether, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, as equivalent to “the 


the apostle in it does not in any way express does not mean “ maintain.” 

the hope that God’ would maintain for him his 1Bengel rightly: vult Paulus ea, quae 
official work till the day of Christ.” The “ for Timotheus semel audierat, semper anime 
him” is arbitrarily imported, and ¢vAacoey —_ejus observari et Impressa manere. 


216 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


sound doctrine,” or, with van Oosterzee, as equivalent to 7d yépioua. 
Since all that the apostle has enjoined on Timothy from ver. 6 onward 
has special reference to the discharge of his office, we may surely under- 
stand rapadjxy to have the same meaning here as in ver. 12; besides, as 
already remarked, it is not conceivable that Paul, in two sentences so 
closely connected, should have used the same word with different mean- 
ings. It need not excite wonder that in ver. 12 Paul looks to God for the 
preservation of the zapad#xn, while here he lays it on Timothy as a duty ; 
God’s working does not exclude the activity of man. vAdcoew here, as in 
ver. 12, is: “to keep from harm uninjured,” and from the tendency of the 
whole epistle it is clear that this exhortation referred to the heresy which 
perverted the gospel.—éva rvebuarog dyiov.]! Timothy is not to employ any 
human means for preserving the rapadjxy; the only means is to be the 
Holy Spirit, ze. he is to let the Spirit work in him free and unconfined, 
and only do that to which the Spirit impels him. The Spirit, however, is 
not something distant from him, as is shown by the words: rod évorxovvrog 
év jutv, On évotxovvtoc, comp. ver. 5. Ev juiv denotes the Spirit as the 
one principle of the new life, working in all believers. ‘Hyiv, here as in 
ver. 6, must not be referred simply to Paul and Timothy; nor isit to be 
overlooked that Paul does not say év coi. 

Ver. 15. [On Vv. 15-18, see Note XXIV., page 222.] The apostle 
reminds Timothy of those who had deserted him. [XXIV a.] This isdone 
to incite Timothy to come to Rome with the greater speed, and also 
not to be ashamed of Paul, the prisoner of Christ, as the others 
had been (ver. 8).—oida¢ rovro] expresses not the probability merely (as 
Matthies says), but the certainty that he knows.—ér areorpdgyoav pe] The 
aorist passive has here the force of the middle voice ; for the same con- 
struction, comp. Tit. i. 14; Heb. xii. 25; see Wahl on the passage, and 
Buttmann, p. 166 [E. T. 192]. The word does not denote the departure 
of any one, but is equivalent to aversari, properly, “turn one’s counte- 
nance away from any one,” and so “throw off inwardly the acquaintance 

of any one.”? Without reason, de Wette denies that it has this meaning 
here. There is therefore in the verb no ground for the common opinion 
that the rdvrec of év 7H ’Acia had been. with Paul in Rome, and had again 
returned to Asia (Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger). Nor is there more 
ground in the term used for the subject ; avre¢ oi év rH ’Acia are “all who 
are in (proconsular) Asia;” but, as a matter of course, that cannot mean 
all the Christians there. Perhaps Paul was thinking only of his colleagues 
who were then residing in Asia (Otto); but in that case he would surely 
have designated them more precisely. It is possible that the construc- 
tion has its explanation in the addition dv éotw iyeAAog Kai ‘Epyoyévne, 
viz.: “all the Asiatics, to whom belong Phygellus and Hermogenes.” In 
any case, these two are named because they were the most conspicuous 
in their unfaithfulness to the apostle. Paul gives no hint of it, and we 


Chrysostom: ov yap éotiv avOpwrivns Wuxis 2So in the N. T., in the LXX., the Apocry- 
oudé duvvdpews, TodaiTa éumiotevdevta apxegat pha of the O. T., and the classical writers; 
mpos Thy pvdakny. comp. Otto, p. 283. 


CHAP. I. 15-18. pA Ui 


ean hardly think it probable that they were heretics, and that the other 
Asiatics had also fallen away from the truth (Otto). 

Vy. 16-18. With these unfaithful Asiatics, Paul contrasts the faithful- 
ness of Onesiphorus, probably that he might place an example before 
Timothy.—d¢7 éAeo¢ 6 Kbpiog TH ’Ovyoipépov oikw] [XXIV b.] didvar ée0¢ does 
not occur elsewhere in the N. T. Regarding the form 47, proper to 
later Greek, see Buttmann, Ausfuhrl. Gramm. 3 107, Rem. 9; Winer, pp. 
75 f. [E. T. p. 78]. By 6 xipic we must understand Christ, according to 
the usage of the N. T. Onesiphorus is named only here and at iv. 19. 
Many expositors (also Hofmann) think that his household only is in both 
passages mentioned, because he was’ no longer in life. This opinion is 
confirmed by the way in which mercy is wished for him in ver. 18 (de 
Wette).—Paul expressed such a wish because of the love that had been 
shown him; 67 rodAdkic pe avéwrte] avapiyew, properly, “cool,” then 
“refresh, enliven” (Od. iv. 568: yop), occurring only here in the N. T. 
(more frequently in the LXX.; avayvéic, Acts ili. 19), is not to be derived 
from pvy7 (Beza), but from piyo. De Wette, without ground, thinks that 
a bodily refreshment of meat and drink only is meant; it should rather 
be referred more generally to all proofs of love on the part of Onesiphorus. 
These were all the more precious to the apostle that they were given to 
him in his imprisonment, and proved that Onesiphorus was not ashamed 
of his bonds (vy. 8, 12); this is expressed in the words that follow. On 
Gdvowv, comp. Eph. vi. 20.—Ver. 17. a4Ad] in opposition to the preceding 
ovK.—yevouevoc év ‘Poun] (comp. Matt. xxvi.6; Acts xiii. 5). Itis not said 
what moved him to journey to Rome; it is mere conjecture to suppose 
that it was business matters.—orovdaiérepov (Rec. Tisch. 8: orovdaiwe) élyrncé 
pe] The comparative is the right reading, and is to be explained by refer- 
ring to r. dAvoiv pov ovk éxacyivdn, “all the more eagerly” (Wiesinger, 
Hofmann).—The ¢yreiv stands in sharp contrast with azeorpddyoay pe, ver. 
15.—The addition of kat eipe brings out that Onesiphorus had sought him 
till he found him.—Paul at first wished mercy only to the house of Onesi- 
phorus; he now does the same to Onesiphorus himself.—Ver. 18. Mat- 
thies, Wiesinger, Hofmann think that edpeiy Meoc is a play on words with 
the preceding eipe; but this is at least doubtful.—The repetition of kipzo¢ 
is striking : 6 xbpioc . .. mapa kvpiov. We can hardly take these to refer to 
two different subjects (according to de Wette, the first being God, the 
second Christ; according to Wiesinger and Hofmann, the very oppo- 
site).—6 xipioc here is in any case Christ, as in ver. 16, iv. 18 (certainly 
not: “the world-ruling, divine principle,” Matthies). The apostle in what 
follows might simply have said etpeiv eAeoc év éx. tT. juépa; but in his men- 
tal vision of the judgment, seeing Christ as judge, he writes down rapa 
xupiov just as-it occurs to him, without being anxious to remember that he 
had begun with diy aire 6 Kipioc. The phrase etpioxes éAeog rapa with 
genitive does not occur elsewhere; only in the Song of the Three Chil- 
dren, ver. 14, have we evpeiv éheoc; in 2 John 8: éora . . . éeog . . . mapa 








1Van Oosterzee: ‘An inartistic form of expression, in which the second xvpsos may be 
taken for the reflective pronoun.” 


218 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


@cov. As to the expression, we should compare especially Heb. iv. 16: 
iva AGBupev éAeo¢ Kai yapw ebpwpev (ebpiox. yap, Luke i. 30; Acts vil. 46, 
and often in the LXX. and the Apocrypha of the O. T.). On év éxeivy rq 
juépa, comp. ver. 12. This wish the apostle utters not only because of 
the love Onesiphorus had shown him in Rome, but also because of what 
he had done in Ephesus, of which, however, he does not wish here to 
speak further, as it is well known to Timothy.—xai 60a év ’Egéow Sijxdvyce] 
Heydenreich, Hofmann,! and some others supply oi, others roig ayiore ; 
both are unnecessary. Even without supplying anything, we can of 
course understand that he is speaking of services rendered in the church. 
On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that Onesiphorus was 
actually a didkovoc of the church.—féAriov od ywooxerc] The adverb BéAriov 
only here; the comparative does not simply stand for the positive, see 
Winer, pp. 227 f. [E. T. p. 242]. There is a comparison implied here: 
“than I could tell thee,” or the like.? 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXII. Vv. 1,2. 


(a) The expression which is peculiar to the salutation of this Epistle, as com- 
pared with any other, is Kaz’ émayyediav Cugc. The preposition here is taken by 
Grimm, Rob., and most of the recent commentators in the sense of purpose, object 
or intention—to make known the promise of life. That it ordinarily in the N. T. 
has, in such constructions, the sense of according to cannot be doubted. The ex- 
amples quoted by Winer and others in support of the former meaning hardly seem 
to be, in the full sense, parallel with the case here presented. They either suggest 
the idea of motion, or, like one which Winer cites—«ar’ atiyiav Aéyo—have the 
preposition in the sense of by way of, or have some kindred peculiarity. It can- 
not be denied, however, that the use of card as denoting direction towards an 
object or purpose is a known use in Greek writers. The phrase kata xiorw in Tit. 
i. 1 is a stronger case than the present one, as favoring this meaning in the 
phrase aéoroAo¢ xara followed by an accusative. It may be said as to both cases, 
that the presumption from Pauline and N. T. usage is strongly against this sense ; 
that, in the verse before us, there is no special difficulty in explaining the words 
with the ordinary sense of kara in such phrases—the promise of life is the funda- 
mental thing, in conformity with which all offices in the church and all commis- 
sions to preachers and messengers are given of God; and that, even in the case” 
of Tit. i. 1 f., it is not impossible to assign to the preposition the same meaning, 
because of the connection of faith with the eternal life promised by God, which 
is there presented as being close and immediate. Still it must be admitted, that 
it is much less probable that Paul would speak of himself as being an Apostle in 
accordance with the faith of men, than as being such in accordance with the will or 


1 Hofmann supposes that those services are 20tto supposes that Onesiphorus was the 
meant which Onesiphorus, after his return first to seek Paul out in his imprisonment, 
from Rome to Ephesus, rendered tothe apos- and that he brought the news spoken of from 


tle for the purpose of disarming the charges Ephesus: but these are conjectures which 
that had brought him into prison. This, can hardly be called probable, as there is no 
however, is a mere conjecture, ground on which to rest them. 


NOTES. 219 


command of God. Noyes translates by according to in 2 Tim. i. 1 and for in Tit. 
i. 1, and this seems, not improbably, the best rendering. R. V., like A. V., has 
according to in both cases.—(b) The discussions of some of the commentators as to 
whether aya77 (ver. 2) is not purposely used as indicating that Timothy, having 
lacked in courage or faith since the first epistle, could not now be called yvyjatoc, 
or (as Alf. presents it in a milder way) as showing more of love on Paul’s part, 
indeed, but less of confidence, must be regarded as without any reasonable ground. 
Paul must be allowed to have written his letters with the freedom with which men 
of his free, ardent spirit write in all ages. He wrote yvyowo¢ twice in these three 
epistles and ayam779¢ once, instead of writing yv7jovoc three times, because he was 
alive in the region of thought and affection, and not mechanically obedient to 
grammarians and critics. 


XXII. Vv. 3-5. 


(a) The same freedom of a living writer is shown in the expression of thanks 
+n vv. 3 f. There are certain correspondences between this passage and the 
thanksgiving at the beginning of the Ep. to the Romans, but, when taken in con- 
nection with the marked differences, they are not such as characterize an imitator 
trying to pass off his work under the name of another, but a writer precisely like 
the Apostle Paul, whose combination of similarities and dissimilarities in this way 
is a most marked, and even inimitable, feature of his style-—(b) Of the two ex- 
planations which Huther allows for the meaning of 47d tpoyévwv, and which he 
quotes from Buttmann and de Wette, the latter is the more probable: “The ser- 
vice of the Apostle’s progenitors is continued in him.” With év xadapa ovvecd. 
we may compare év 7@ mvebuarti pov of Rom. i. 9, though the meaning of the 
phrases is not precisely the same.—(c) The explanation of the quite difficult and 
involved sentence beginning with ydapw éyw and ending with the fifth verse, which 
is given by Huther, Ellicott, and Wiesinger, is the one which commends itself. 
This explanation makes the passage accord with the general expressions of thanks 
which are found at the opening of different epistles, (1) in that it gives a ground 
for the thankfulness in something which the Apostle hears or knows of the person 
or persons addressed (here: since I have been reminded of the unfeigned faith 
that is in thee) ; (2) in that it places the mentioning of the person addressed in 
the writer’s prayers in just that relation to the thought and sentence, which it 
ordinarily has in such passages ; (3) in that it gives due subordination to the 
secondary clauses étutoJ@v k.7.2., wey. K.7.A.; (4) in that it assigns to @¢ the 
meaning as, instead of how which is far less natural. Had the Apostle intended 
to refer to his unceasing remembrance, etc., as the ground of his thankfulness, he 
would have used 67/, or have said how unceasingly I have, or how unceasing is ; (5) 
in that it makes that which is evidently the thing for the bringing out of which 
the sentence was written—the faith of Timothy, handed down to him, as it were, 
from the previous generations—the cause of the feeling whose expression has the 
first and prominent place in the sentence.—(d) The words peuvyt. cov TOV daKkpvwov 
(ver. 4) are parenthetical as related to the clauses preceding and following, and 
iva yapac TAnpwdG is to be connected with éxixovav oe ieiv, Tisch. 8th ed. unites 
iva k.7.A. with ueuy. o. T. daxp. W. and H. place a comma between these words and 
daxpowr, but do not place one between them and txduv700. Treg. places a comma 
both ‘before and after the iva clause. The text adopted by R. V. places a comma 
before the clause, and a colon after it. The punctuation of Treg. is correct, if the 


220 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


view of the construction just given is to be accepted. Against that given by Tisch. 
may be urged the naturalness and fitness of connecting iva with émimxodov K,7.7., 
and the improbability (not to say, with Huther, impossibility) of the Apostle’s say- 
ing, that he remembers Timothy’s tears in order that he may be filled with joy. 
Against that of W. and H., the arguments presented by Huther in his note on ver.5, 
in opposition to Otto’s view, or the last two of them, are of so much force as to 
make it quite improbable. That of R. V. is exposed to the objections which are 
involved in the reasons given above for connecting i76yu, AaBov with éxyw yapw.— 
(e) AaBov (ver. 5), thus gives the ground of Paul’s thankfulness, and, being an 
aor. part., refers to what he had already received. It seems better to suppose 
that the reminding referred to had come to him through some messenger, or other 
external means. It is much less probable that the remembrance of Timothy’s 
tears (which were shed, we may believe, at the time of Paul’s parting from him, 
and which therefore may have been in his recollection ever since), was the cause, 
as Huther holds. Both the word iméuvyore and the aor. part., as Holtzm. also says, 
point to an outward, rather than an inward occasion. Alford, who with some 
other writers, is disposed to find evidences everywhere that Timothy’s character 
had much of weakness and timidity, supposes that there is an evidence of the 
same thing here—the remembrance being of the past, and the present existence 
of the faith being only introduced, somewhat later, as a confident hope. The 
baselessness of this view, so far as this passage is concerned, is shown by almost 
every word in the sentence, which is full of affection and commendation ; by the 
fact that the whole record of Timothy’s career, so far as the N. T. gives it, pre- 
sents him as Paul’s most trusted associate and helper; and by the correspondence 
of this expression of thankfulness with the expressions of the same feeling in 
other epistles—especially with that in Phil., which is the most affectionate letter 
of all those which Paul addressed to the churches. 


XXIII. Vv. 6-14. 


(a) The yapioua of ver. 6 is that which was connected with his office as a 
preacher. This is proved by the clause which follows, since that clause evidently 
refers to Timothy’s ordination. This gift of the Holy Spirit the Apostle exhorts | 
‘ him to stir up—davaCwrrpeiv meaning either to kindle up or kindle afresh, but, in 
either case, not necessarily implying that the flame had died away or been extin- 
guished. The entire exhortation of this passage can be accounted for as the 
expression of the urgent desire which, in the circumstances in which he himself 
was at the time, Paul may have felt that his younger friend should be earnest and ~ 
faithful in all the emergencies of his work. The appreciation of the trial which 
would come upon his faithful helpers and companions, in case of his death, must 
have been in his mind in view of the threatening possibilities of the future, and 
he may, most naturally, have been impelled to urge them not to be ashamed of 
the gospel, as he had not been, but, on the other hand, to stir up afresh the divine 
gift which had been imparted to them, and to be ready to suffer hardship for the 
gospel. That avafo7. does not imply that Timothy’s faith had failed, is indicated 
by the words 6? fv airiav, which connect it immediately with the expression of 
his confidence that the faith was still existing and with the allusion to the remind- 
ing of it which he had received —(b) yap (ver. 7) evidently introduces a reason 
—which belongs to the very foundation of the Christian life—for the exhortation 


NOTES. pial 


of ver. 6. This reason is expressed on the positive and negative side. The word 
nw refers, probably, to all Christians, not to preachers only ; comp. Rom. viii. 15. 
mvevua, in such phrases as this, is best taken as referring to the Holy Spirit 
(though it cannot be affirmed that this is certainly the meaning), and the geni- 
tives are characteristic gen. These words in the genitive, however, decAiac, duva- 
uewe, k.7.A., indicate the results which come (or, as devAiac, do not come) from the 
Spirit,—that is, the Spirit is so characterized because He produces these results. 
—(e) With éraoyuvdje x.7.A. (ver. 8) comp. Rom. i. 16. With some of the words 
of vv. 9,10, comp. Eph. i.11; ii. 7,9; Rom. xv. 16, xvi. 25 f., and other passages. 
Whether there is a special reference here to the desired coming of Timothy to 
Rome, or whether the meaning is more general, is doubtful. But, as there is no 
distinct allusion to a visit to Rome and no apparent necessity of limiting the words 
in their application, it is better to adopt the latter view. If the reference is gen- 
eral, cvyxaxoradyoov must be understood in a similar way. This suffering of evil 
was to be for the gospel, and with Paul (civ), but not merely by sharing in his 
work or trials in Rome—(d) kara dvvaucv is best explained in connection with the 
following words, and thus as denoting God’s power in salvation. So EIL, Alf., 
Fairb., Bib. Com., Wiesinger and others. Holtzm., de W., and others agree with 
Huther. The addition of the full description of the divayi¢ as displayed in sal- 
vation is apparently for the purpose of enforcing the exhortation uz émaiwy. K.7.A. 
Vv. 9. 10, accordingly, both “ bring into prominence the div, Geov” (Wiesinger), 
and “strengthen the exhortation of ver. 8” (Huther).—(e) mpd ypdvwv aiwviwy 
(ver. 9). The similarity between the expressions here and in Rom. xvi. 25 f. 
makes it almost certain, that, in this phrase, the Apostle refers to the purpose of 
God, in eternity past, to bestow grace in Christ. In the sense of being thus pur- 
posed and determined, the grace was already given. But it was not yet mani- 
fested. The manifestation and real bestowment of it took place when Christ 
appeared. The word éx:@aveva is, as Huther remarks, found in this place only as 
referring to the appearance of Christ in the flesh. But the corresponding verb 
occurs, with a similar reference, in Tit. ii. 1, Comp. also Tit. iii. 4, 5, in which 
verses there are further points of similarity with this passage.—( jf) The use of 
Katapyyoavtoc with Tov Javarov (ver. 10), as compared with 1 Cor. xv. 26, indicates 
a reference to death as a power or enemy of the kingdom of God and His people. 
The use of the word gwricavro¢g in the contrasted clause implies a revelation of 
something unknown to their minds. The two words together seem to suggest a 
destruction of the power of death through this revelation, and thus a removal of 
that power, not only in itself as in 1 Cor. xv., but also in its influence and terror 
for the Christian believer. The word Gavaroc here has, primarily and of itself, the 
sense of physical death, but, in its-connection with the following words, it suggests 
that which attends upon physical death as a consequence in the future. 

(g) The reference in 6’ #v aitiav (ver, 12) is not to érédyv éy@ «.7.2, considered 
in itself alone, but to the fact that Paul’s appointment as a preacher was related 
to the proclamation of such a glorious truth so wonderfully exhibiting the power 
of God. In this way, the connection of the entire passage iv.8 ff becomes clearly 
manifest.—(h) The meaning of tapadyjxyv of ver. 12, if determined by the pre- 
ceding context, would seem, most naturally, to be the d:axovia or yapiopua which had 
been bestowed upon the Apostle. If determined by the fact that ov is added 
here, and not in other places where the word occurs; that the adjective «aA7v, on the 
other hand, is not here added, as it is elsewhere ; and that God is spoken of in this 


222 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


verse, as He is not in the other passages, as guarding (@vAdfac) the tapadjxny 
“against that day” (in the other cases Timothy is exhorted to guard it), the word 
would seem to mean something committed by Paul to God, rather than something 
committed by God to Paul. TI, finally, it is to be determined by the tapadjxyv of 
ver. 14, and that word by the corresponding word in 1 Tim. vi. 20 (see note XX y. 
above), the meaning will be the truth which is preached—that which appertains to 
the gospel. The considerations suggested in connection with the second way of 
explaining the word strongly support that explanation.—(i) It will be observed 
that the allusion to the tyaivovtec Adyor in this passage occurs only in ver. 13. 
The fact that it does occur in this verse makes it altogether probable that ~apa- 
YyKnv of ver. 14 corresponds in meaning exactly with tapadjxyv of 1 Tim. vi. 20. 
The fact, on the other hand, that these words do not occur until ver. 13 may easily 
account for a difference in the application of tapadqxyv of ver. 12 from that which 
is made in ver. 14. The objection suggested by Huther and some others against 
giving wapad, a different reference in the two verses of this chapter is thus 
removed. 


XXIV. Vv. 15-18. 


(a) The abandonment of Paul by the persons alluded to in these verses, and 
the grateful mention of the friend who had aided and comforted him in his 
imprisonment, are inserted here as matters personal to himself, of which he might 
easily and naturally write in a personal, friendly letter. Perhaps the reason 
of their insertion may be partly, also, the desire to give emphasis to his urgent 
request to Timothy which is presented in the preceding part of the chapter. 
That the latter object was in the Apostle’s mind is, possibly, indicated by the 
opening verses of the second chapter.—(b) That Onesiphorus was dead at the 
time of the writing of this letter is not improbable, but it is by no means certain. 
The indication of anything like praying for the dead, in the doctrinal sense of that 
phrase, must be admitted to be very questionable. Whether there is any such 
indication depends on whether Onesiphorus had already died, which cannot be 
proved, and whether, if he had died, this expression of a wish must be under- 
stood as, strictly speaking, a prayer for the dead, which also cannot be proved. 
The doctrine, therefore, is weak in both of its foundations, and it cannot be rested 
’ upon this passage. Onesiphorus probably had been, or, if still living, was, a resi- 
dent of Ephesus; but even if living, he was now absent from his home, comp. 
iv. 19. ; ; 


CHAP. ILI. Zoo 


CHAPTER. II. 


Ver. 3. In place of od obv kaxoratycov, we should read ovykaxorabyoov, which 
is supported by the weightiest authorities, and adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
It is found in A C* D* K* F G® 17, 31, al., Vulg. It. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. Gil- 
das. The Rec. is found apart from K L only in the altered text of C D E, and 
especially in the Greek Fathers, for which reason Reiche regards it as the origi- 
nal reading. Probably the beginning of ver. 1 gaveoccasion to the alteration, 
which was also recommended by the lack of any word to which the prefixed pre- 
position refers. Even the occurrence in some mss. of the reading ovvetpatiary¢ 
for otpati@ry¢ is a proof that ovyKaxor, is original.'—For ‘Ijoov Xpiotod we should 
read Xpiorov ‘Iyjoov, following the weightiest authorities—Ver. 4. The words To 
Oe¢ added to orparevouevoc in some MSS., etc., have arisen from a misapprehen- 
sion; the apostle is speaking not of God’s foes, but of foes in general—Ver. 6. 
The reading mpérepov in 8 for tpa@tov seems to be a mere correction.—Ver. 7. 4 
Aéyo] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly read 6 Aéyo, after A C F G, 17, a/., Chrys.; 4 
is a correction, in order to bring out a reference to the three previous sentences.— 
dacer] for don, after A C* D E F GS 17, al., Copt. Arm. ete., Ambrosiast. Fel. 
etc.; dy is explained from i. 17, 18.—Ver. 12. For apvoiea we find in A C sev- 
eral cursives, translations, and Fathers, the future apvycduefa, which Lachm. 
Buttm. and Tisch. adopted; the presents (imouévoyuev ; atvorovuev) seem to be in 
favor of our adopting the present here; but the very same reason might have 
suggested the alteration of the future into the present.—Ver. 13. After apvycacta 
we should read yap, according to the weightiest authorities, and this Griesb. 
adopted into the text—Ver. 14. tov xvpiov] Instead of this, C F G & 37, al., Copt. 
Arm. ete., Chrys. Theoph. ete., have tov Oeov (Tisch. 8); but Tov xupiov is the 
original reading ; the correction may be explained from 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. iy. 
1.—Instead of the infinitive Aoyouayeiv (C*** DE F G K LS, the cursives, several 
versions, etc., Tisch.), we find Aoyoud yer in A C* Aeth. Vulg. etc. (Lachm. Buttm.). 
According to the former reading, the verb Aoyou. is dependent on dayaprupédmevoc ; 
according to the latter, dcazapr. is connected with what precedes, and Aoyouayer 
begins a new imperative clause. For the decision on the point, see the explana- 
tion of the verse.—Hic¢ ovdév] A C, 17, al., have éw’ ovdév (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.) ; 
F GX (first hand), Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pelag. etc., ém’ ovdevi yap, Of these 
various readings, least can be said for é7’ ovdev? yap; it seems to have arisen from 
an endeavor to form these words in the same way as those that follow; even the 
yap is only an insertion by way of explanation. Of the two others, éx’ obdév is to 
be preferred as the less usual form; ei¢ oidév occurs elsewhere in the N. T., and 
evxpyotoc, especially in iv. 11, is construed with ei¢—Ver. 19. & has tavrac before 
tov¢ évtac, probably a later addition.—xvpiov for Xpcotov was rightly adopted by 


1To Reiche’s remark: Quomodo in unius be replied that the scribe was probably in- 
Codicis D lectione ovvotpariétys lectionis duced by the previous cvyxak. to prefix evr 
gvykakor. praesidium sit, non video, it may also before the word otpatiérys. 


224 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Griesb.—Ver. 21. #jy:acpévov, ebypyotov, instead of pyracpy. Kai ebxp., after A C** 
D* E* F G, ete.—Ver. 22. Between werd and tv there is found 7dvtwv (Lachm. 
Buttm.) in A C F G 17, 28, al., Aeth. Slav. ete., Chrys. Theodoret, etc.; F G fur- 
ther omit the article Tév. Since wdvre¢ stands in the same expression at Rom. 
xi. 12, 1 Cor. i. 2, it seems to have been inserted from these passages. Tisch. 
omits 7advrwy, on the authority of DEK L, al., Vulg. Copt. Syr. ete—Ver. 25. 
For 66, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly read 64’y, after A C D* F G ® (first 
hand), 31, al., Ephr. Chrys. ms. Isidor. 


Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note XXV., pages 241-243.] After interrupting 
his exhortations by an allusion to the unfaithful Asiatics and to the faith- 
ful Onesiphorus, Paul with oi resumes his exhortations to Timothy, at the 
same time connecting them by oiv with those already given. [XXV a.] 
In the first place, he now appeals to him : évdvvayod év 7H yapite TH év Xp. ’Tyo.] 
[XXV b.] évdvvapoiodai does not mean : “ feel oneself strong,” nor : “ depend 
on something” (Heydenreich) ; but: “ become strong, grow strong” (see 
Eph. vi. 10). The active voice is found in iv. 17 and 1 Tim.i.12. As the 
apostle sees the end of his labors draw nearer, he is the more anxious 
that Timothy, for whom he has the warmest paternal love (réxvov sv), 
should become a stronger and bolder champion for the Lord.—év rq yaperc] 
may either be a completion of the idea of évdvvauod (Wiesinger), or define 
it more precisely (van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). The second view is 
the correct one: Timothy is to become strong by the yapic 7 év Xp., that 
he may be capable of discharging faithfully the office entrusted to him; 
comp. the passage in Eph. vi. 10.—) yapic 7 év Xp. ’1.] is not the office of 
teacher (Calovius and others), nor is it equivalent to ydpeya, i.6; on the 
other hand, it is not “the life imparted by divine grace,” nor “ the redemp- 
tion” of the Christian (Wiesinger); it is objectively the grace dwelling in 
Christ, the grace of Jesus Christ, or better: “the grace obtained for us in 
the person of Christ’ (Hofmann).—év is explained by Chrysostom and 
others as equivalent to dia; this is not incorrect, only that év indicates a 
‘more internal relation than 6:4. The believer lives in the grace which is 
in Christ ; the strengthening to which Timothy is exhorted can only be 
effected by his abiding in this grace. 

Ver. 2. While ver. 3 corresponds with the first verse, ver. 2 seems to con- 
tain a thought foreign to this connection. But as the contest to which ~ 
Paul is exhorting Timothy, consists substantially in the undaunted preach- 
ing of the pure gospel and in the rejection of all heresy, it was natural for 
him to exhort Timothy to see that others were armed with the word for 
which he was to strive. The true warrior must care also for his compan- 
ions in the fight.—kai @ jKoveac rap’ éuov| (comp. i. 13: dia roAAGY papripwr). 
These words belong immediately to jxovcac ; Heydenreich is wrong im sup- 
plying paprupoiyueva or BeBawineva. According to Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Hypotyp. i. 7, Oecumenius, Grotius, and others, uéprupec is equivalent to 
véuoc Kai rpodyrai, for which there is as little justification as for the opinion 
that the other apostles are meant. The preposition d:4@ is explained by 
Winer, p. 354 [E. T. p. 378]: “ intervenientibus multis testibus, with inter- 


CHAP. II. 1-3. 225 


vention, i.e. here in presence of many witnesses ” (so, too, the more recent 
expositors). Right; but da is not equivalent to évémiov (1 Tim. vi. 12), Aca 
intimates that the witnesses were present to confirm the apostle’s word, 
or, as Wiesinger says, “that their presence was an integral element of that 
act to which the apostle is alluding.” —According to Matthies, van Ooster- 
zee, Hofmann, the apostle is thinking here of his public discourses on 
doctrine ; but the whole character of the expression, particularly also the 
otherwise superfluous addition of dca 0AA6v wapripor, make it more prob- 
able that the words refer to a definite fact, the fact spoken of in 1 Tim. iv. 
14; 2 Tim. i. 6(Wiesinger). In that case, the paprupec are the presbyters 
and other members of the church who were present at Timothy’s ordina- 
tion. Mack rightly directs attention to 1 Tim. iv. 14; but he is wrong in 
explaining dca apt. by dia mpogyreiac, “in consequence of many testimo- 
nies.”—raita rapadou mioroig avdporoc] [XXV c.] Heydenreich: “ this 
doctrine commit to faithful keeping and further communication as a 
legacy, as a precious jewel” (comp. Herod. ix. 45: rapadijxyv tyiv ta érea 
rade Tid_ewac); but the expression 4@ jxovoac does not refer so much to the 
whole of evangelic doctrine as to the instructions given to Timothy for 
the discharge of his office.—ruotoi¢ avdpéroc] not “ believing,” but “ faith- 
ful, trustworthy ” men.—oirive¢ ixavoi éoovtar kai Erépove didaEac] Heydenreich 
thinks that this denotes a second quality of those to be instructed by 
Timothy, a quality in addition to their “honest sense,” viz. their capacity 
for teaching ; but oirwec, which, as contrasted with the simple relative pro- 
noun, refers to a subject undefined, but in various ways definable,’ points 
back to moroic, so that the meaning is: “who as such,” etc. The future 
écovra: does not stand in the same sense as the present, but denotes their 
capacity as one depending on the tradition to be imparted to them (“as 
the consequence of the rapatidecda,” Wiesinger). The xai before érépove 
is not to be overlooked; “ others too,” 7. e. “others in turn.” Who are 
the érepo.? According to the common presupposition, with which van 
Oosterzee also agrees, the frepo are the church, or more generally the 
hearers of the preaching of the gospel. But in this view the xa/, which 
does not belong to érépoue ddé=ac (Hofmann), but to érépove, is inexplicable ; 
itis more probable that Paul means other moroi dvdpwror (de Wette, Wies- 
inger). Paul gathered round him pupils to whom he gave instructions in 
regard to their office ; they, too, are todo the same; those chosen by them 
the same in their turn, etc., that in the church there may abide a stock 
of apostolic men who will see to the propagation of pure doctrine.—The 
words did 7oAAGY paptipor show that there is no thought of a secret doc- 
trine; nor is he speaking of the regular employment of teachers who, in 
the absence of Timothy, are to take his place in the church at Ephesus, 
“ne sine episcopo vaga oberret ecclesia” (Heinreichs). 

Ver. 3. EvyxaxordOnoov] [XXV d.] Timothy is not to shun a community 
of suffering with the apostle, i. 8, 12, 16.—d¢ katoc orpariarye “Inoov Xpiorov | 
otparidtnc stands elsewhere in the N. T. only in its proper sense, but, as is 


1gee Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 387. 
15 


226 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


well known, the kindred words orpareia, otpareveoba, are often used of the 
Christian life. Here, however, the apostle is speaking not generally of 
Timothy’s work as a Christian, but more specially of his work in the office 
committed to him, viz. of his struggle against the opponents of evangelic 
truth and the toils connected therewith. [XXV e.] 

Ver. 4. “ Hoc versu commendatur 76 abstine; accedit versu seq. 76 sus- 
tine” (Bengel).—ovdei¢ otpatevouevoc | alludes to OTpaTlarye : “no one serving 
as a soldier” (de Wette); comp. 1 Tim. i. 18.—éuréxerar raic tov Biov mpay- 
pateiaic*] éudAéxecbac elsewhere only in 2 Pet. ii. 20.—zpayyareia] occurs 
only here in the N. T. (the verb mpayyareteo#a, Luke xix. 18); ai tov Biov 
mpayyz. are the occupations which form means of livelihood; Heydenreich : 
“the occupations of the working class as opposed to those of the soldier 
class.” —From these the orpatevéuevoc abstains iva t6 otpatodoygoavte apécy | 
atpatoroyyoac (only here), from oroarojoyeiv: “ gather an army, raise troops,” 
is a term for a general.—Only that soldier who gives himself up entirely 
to military service, and does not permit himself to be distracted by other 
things, only he fulfills the general’s will. The application to the orparirye 
Ino. Xp. is self-evident; he, too, is to devote himself entirely to his service, 
and not to involve himself in other matters which might hinder him in 
his proper calling. The literal interpretation, according to which the 
apostle or preacher should take no concern whatever in civil affairs, is 
contradicted by Paul’s own example; according to the precept here 
given, he is to avoid them only when they are a hindrance to the duties 
of his office. 

Ver. 5. A new thought is added, that the contender who wishes to be 
crowned must contend voyizwc.—éav dé Kai 402% Tic] kai connects this thought 
with what precedes: “if one, too, does not permit himself to be kept 
from the struggle by other occupations; ”? but the figure here is different 
from that we had in ver. 4, a@deiv (az. Aey. in the N. T.) denoting the con- 
test in running, to which the Christian calling is often compared; comp. 
iv. 7, 8; 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25.—ob oredavovrar, éav yy) vopiuwc abAjon] The runner, 
in order to gain the prize, must in the contest adhere to its definite rules. 
Theodoret : kai 7 abAnruch véuore Exer Tide, Ka? ob¢ xpoohKer Tove aOAnrac aywvi- 
* Ceotar' 6 dé mapa TobTove Tadaiwy, Tov oTeddvwr diayapraver. In this, too, accord- 
“ing to 1 Cor. ix. 25, éyxpatevecfac should be observed.* The word vouiuoc 
occurs only here and in 1 Tim. i. 8—The thought contained in it is this, 
that Timothy, in order to share in the reward, must conduct himself in 
his evangelic warfare according to the laws of his evangelic office. 

Ver. 6. To the two foregoing sentences Paul adds still another, expressed 
figuratively : Tov Komi@vra yewpyov det mparov k.t.A. Many expositors assume 


1Ambros. de Offic. i. 1: is, qui imperatori 
militat, a susceptionibus litium, actu nego- 
tiorum forensium, yenditione mercium pro- 
hibetur humanis legibus.—Athan. Dict. et 
Interpr. Parab. 8. Ev. qu. 119: ei yap émryecw 
Baovrct 0 péAAwy oTparevecOat ovK apécel, Eav 
4n adjoyn Tagas Tas TOU Biov povtidas, Toop 


padAov pméAAwY oTpaTevOjvar TO Emovpaviw 
Bactrc ; 

2Hofmann denies this connection of 
thought, maintaining wrongly that «ai could 
only have this meaning if the apostle had 
continued to use the same figure. 

8Comp. Galen, Comm. in Hippocr. i. 15: o% 


CHAP. Il. 4—6. 227 
that there is here an inversion of phrase, and explain the words as equiva- 
lent to Tov yewpydv, kom@vTa TpaTov, dei TOV KapToOv peTad., or as Wahl and 
Winer (in the earlier editions of his Grammar) put it, tov yewpyov, tov HéA0vTa 
TOV KapTav petad., dei TpTov Koray, SO that mparov is attached to koma in 
meaning, and the sentence contains an exhortation; Beza: necesse est 
agricolam, ut fructus percipiat, prius laborare. Heinrichs, on the other 
hand, remarks: nihil attinet, mutare quidquam, aut transponere, dum- 
modo zpérev cum Grotio adverbialiter pro ita denum dictum putemus, 
emphasinque ponamus in 7dr xom@v7a. But this explanation of zpérov 
cannot be justified. Matthies, de Wette, and others reject the supposition 
of any inversion, and explain xpérov as “first before all others,” so that 
the meaning would be: “as the husbandman first enjoys the fruits of the 
field, so, too, has the servant of the gospel a notable reward to expect for 
his work” (de Wette); but this thought diverges entirely from that con- 
tained in vv. 4, 5, and neglects, besides, the emphasis laid on xomvta.— 
It is accordingly to be explained: Not every one, but that husbandman 
who toils hard at his work, is first to enjoy the fruits; Wiesinger: “the 
working farmer has the right of first enjoying the fruits, not he who does 
not work; therefore, if thou dost wish to enjoy the fruits, work.” So, too, 
van Oosterzee. Hofmann, against this explanation, upholds the meaning 
of dei, which does not express what ought to happen, but what must happen, 
in so far as it lies in the nature of things. Aez certainly has this meaning 
of necessity (not that of duty); but if xom@vra be regarded as furnishing 
the condition under which the husbandman tilling the ground must, 
before all others, be partaker of the fruits of the ground tilled, then dei 
in the former explanation presents no difficulty ; in this case it cannot be 
said, with Hofmann, that the zpérov is meaningless. It is to be observed 
that xoriévra does not contrast the husbandman who works with the hus- 
bandman who does not work, but the husbandman who works hard with 
the husbandman who carries on his work Jazily—Hofmann, in interpret- 
ing the sentence as declaring that Timothy must bear everything, whether 
good or bad, that arises from his work, departs from the figure, which 
clearly does not say that the husbandman must content himself alike 
with good fruit and with weeds, but rather that in the nature of things 
the husbandman should before all others enjoy the fruit for which he has 
labored. It is incorrect, with Theodoret and Oecumenius, to understand 
xporov of the preference over the pupil which is the teacher’s due; or to 
find in the words of the apostle the thought that the teacher must appro- 
priate to himself the fruits of the spirit which he wishes to impart to 
others. Even Chrysostom rightly rejected the opinion,’ that here the 


suffering want in it. This, however, is a re- 
proof which cannot be justified. Van Ooster- 
zee rightly says: It is undoubtedly a Pauline 


yuuvacTal Kal ol vowisws aOAodYTES ETL peEV 
Tov apiotov Tov aptov povov eaBiovar, emt dé 
tov Seimvouv To Kpéas. 


1This opinion is also brought forward by 
Otto, who refers all three sentences to anxiety 
regarding bodily wants, as if Timothy had 
become careless in his office through fear of 


principle that the teacher has a right to 
suitable support from the church; but this is 
not the principle taught here. 


228 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


apostle is speaking of the bodily support due to the teacher; but he 
himself gives the words a wrong subsidiary sense when he thinks that 
Paul wishes to console Timothy regarding the preference shown in the 
reward. 

Ver. 7. [XXV//.] As he has been expressing his exhortations in figura- 
tive gnomes, Paul thus continues: véec 6 2éyw] which does not refer imme- 
diately to the thoughts expressed, as Heydenreich, Matthies, and others 
think, but to the form of expression. It does not mean, therefore: “lay 
these exhortations to heart,” but: “mark or understand what I say” (de 
Wette); comp. Matt. xxiv. 15; Eph. iii. 4, 20; so, too, Hofmann, only 
that he for no sufficient reason refers the words merely to the last sen- 
tence. Plitt is of opinion that the apostle is intending thereby to give a 
quite general warning against misconceptions; but this would be an 
arbitrary disturbance of the connection of ideas—To this exhortation 
Paul confidently adds that God will not fail to bestow on Timothy under- 
standing in this and all other points; yap here, as elsewhere, is a particle 
of explanation.—év rao. belongs to this verse, and not, as Sam. Battier 
thinks, to the following one. 

Ver. 8. [On Vy. 8-18, see Note XXVI., page 248.] Moyydveve "Inoovv 
Xpiordv] pvryoveve is usually followed by the genitive; but the accusative 
is found both here and at 1: Thess. ii. 9. Timothy is to remember Jesus 
Christ, that he may gain the proper strength for discharging his official 
duties—to remember especially His resurrection, in which He triumphed 
over sufferings and death, and in which is contained for the believer the 
seal of his victory;! hence Paul adds: éyyyepyévov éx vexpav, “as one who 
rose from the dead.” [XXVI a.J—The added asyndeton: é oxépyatoc 
AaZid, does not denote the humiliation, but the Messianic dignity of 
Christ.2. The antithetical relation between the two clauses is here the 
same as in Rom. i. 3, 4 (é« oz. AaBid . . . & avaordcewc vexpov), where it is 
distinctly marked by kata capka . . Hofmann incorrectly 
makes both é« orépy. A. and é« vexpov depend on éyyyepuévov; in that case 
the verb would have to be taken in two different senses; besides, é« 7. 
_oxépu. is nowhere found in connection with éyeipec#a. There is nothing 
- to indicate (Wiesinger) that é« orépy. AaBid*is an antithesis “to the docetic 
error of the heretics” (van Oosterzee). Heydenreich rightly rejected the 
secondary references which many expositors give to these words, such as: 
that they indicate a similarity between the vicissitudes of Christ’s life and 
those of David; or that they are to serve as a proof of the certainty of 
Christ’s resurrection (Michaelis); or that they denote the whole state of 


. KaTa TvEvua. 


1Hofmann wrongly maintains that “the 
remembrance of Jesus Christ was not to be a 
pledge to Timothy of his victory over all he 
had to encounter for Christ’s sake, but only 
to make him willing to endure.” Such wil- 
lingness could only have comé to him from 
the conviction that the victory of Christ was 
a pledge of victory to the believer. 

Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, pp. 113 f.): 


“Timothy being disinclined to suffer for the 
gospel’s sake, the apostle reminds him that 
through death Jesus attained to the heavenly 
glory, to which He had a right through His 
descent from the line of David.’—Van Oos- 
terzee incorrectly assumes that é« omépu. A. 
simply denotes the human origin of Jesus. 
The apostle clearly goes beyond this in men: 
tioning David oy name. 


CHAP! tie 7-10) 229 


Christ’s humiliation (Mosheim), and so on—The added words: kara 7d 
evayyéAtov ov, may be referred either to pryydveve .7.A. (Hofmann), or to the 
attributes of "Ijo. Xpurév. The latter reference is the more probable one; 
Paul, as a rule, does not use the formula xara 7d evayy. to denote the rule 
for the believer’s conduct, but to confirm a truth he has expressed (comp. 
Rom. i. 16, xvi. 25; 1 Tim. i. 11). To refer it only to é orépu. A. is arbi- 
trary. Still more arbitrary is Jerome’s opinion, that Paul by 70 ebayy. pov 
means the gospel of Luke (Baur). 

Ver. 9. In this verse Paul again, as before, points to his own example, 
in order to encourage Timothy to the ovyxaxorabeiy +6 eva} yedio, 1. 8, ii. 3. 
—iv »] [XXVI 0.] according to Paul’s manner, refers to evayyédiov imme- 
diately preceding, and not to the more distant "Ijoovv Xpicrév. The prepo- 
sition év is not equivalent to did, Col. iv. 8 (Heydenreich). Matthies 
presses the original signification too far when he gives the interpretation : 
“the gospel is, as it were, the ground and soil in which his present lot is 
rooted.” Beza rightly gives the meaning thus: cujus annuntiandi munere 
defungens; de Wette says: “in preaching which.” Comp. Phil. iv. 3; 
1 Thess. ii. 2. Hofmann incorrectly explains év by “in consequence of,” 
which év never does mean, not even in 1 Tim. i. 18.—xaxora9@] is an allu- 
sion to ver. 3.—yéype deoudv] comp. Phil. ii. 8: péype Savdrov.—Qe Kakoup- 
yoc directs attention to the criminal aspect of Paul’s bonds, and thereby 
strengthens the xaxorado wéyps deouov.! The word kaxovpyoc occurs only 
here and in Luke’s gospel; it is synonymous with kaxoroic, 1 Pet. iv. 14. 
—a4An 6 Adyog Tov Oecd ob dédJerac] [XXVI c¢.] Chrysostom explains it: 
deopovvtar pév ai yeipec, aA2 ovy | yA@tta; Comp. Phil. i. 12. The meaning 
according to this would be: ‘the bonds do not, however, hinder me from 
freely preaching the gospel.” But this limitation is not contained in the 
words themselves; they have rather the more general meaning: “though 
I (to whom the gospel is entrusted) am bound, the gospel itself is not 
thereby fettered, but goes freely forth into the world and works unfettered ” 
(2 Thess. ili. 1: 6 Adyoc rod kvpiov rpéyer). This is the very reason of 
the apostle’s joy in his bonds, that Christ is preached; comp. Phil. i. 
18. This connection of ideas does not, however, compel us to take da 
tovro with these words (Hofmann). If so connected, d:@ roiro would 
rather appear to be a modification added loosely; besides, Paul never 
places it at the end of a sentence—Some have wrongly understood by 
6 Ady. t. @. here, the divine promises, and have taken ot déderar to mean 
that these do not remain unfulfilled. 

Ver. 10. Ava roir0] Bengel : “ quia me vincto evangelium currit.” Hey- 
denreich wrongly refers it at the same time to the reward to which ver. 8 
alludes. The knowledge that the gospel is unfettered in its influence 
enables Paul to endure all things for the sake of the éxJexroi. Ad rovre 
cannot be referred to what follows (Wiesinger), because of the did rove 
éxdexrove ; it would be another thing if iva «.7.4. were joined immediately 


1 Otto, opposed to Wieseler, rightly remarks as to an increase in the severity of his 
that these words do not justify any inference imprisonment. 


230 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


with izopvévo; but even in that case the “ abrupt transition ” would still be 
an objection.—ravra irouévw] ixouéverv does not denote suffering pure and 
simple, but the willing, stedfast endurance of #t—By adding to révra 
trouévo the words dia tod¢ éxAexrovc, explained by the emcnnaee 
clause, Paul declares that he patiently endured everything for the sake of 
the éxAexroi, because he knows that the gospel is not bound—is not made 
ineflectual—by his bonds. Were it otherwise, were the gospel hindered 
in its influence by his suffering, then he would not endure for the sake of 
the éxdexroi. Hofmann has no grounds, therefore, for thinking that the 
connection of dia rovro with the sentence following it would give an 
impossible sense. It is wrong to supply «ai before dia +. é«a. (Heyden- 
reich), as if these words furnished an additional reason to that contained 
in dia tovTo.—oi éxAexroi] This name is given to believers, inasmuch as the 
deepest ground of their faith is the free choice of God (i. 9). Heydenreich 
leaves it indefinite whether “ Christians already converted” are meant 
here, or “those elected to be future confessors of Christianity; ” so, too, 
Matthies; de Wette, on the other hand, understands only the latter, 
whereas Grotius and Flatt think only of the former. The words them- 
selves do not prove that Paul had any such distinction in mind; kai airoi 
does not necessarily imply a contrast with present believers (de Wette), 
but may be quite well used in relation to the apostle himself, who was con- 
scious of the cwrypia attained in Christ (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Comp. 
especially Col. i. 24, where the apostle places his suffering in relation to 
the éxkajoia, as the cdua tov Xpiorov jof which the ékAexroi are members.! 
In how far the apostle bears his afflictions dia rode éxA., is told by the 
words: iva kai avtol cwrnpiac tiywor tHe év Xp. "Injoov. The question how 
the apostle might expect this result from his rdvra bropéverw, cannot be 
answered by saying, with Heinrichs: “as he hoped to be freed from his 
sufferings;” the result was to be effected not by a release, but by the 
patient endurance of the suffering, inasmuch as this bore testimony to 
the genuineness and strength of his faith, not, as van Oosterzee thinks, 
because the apostle stedfastly continued to preach. The apostle’s suffer- 
"ing for the gospel was itself a preaching of the gospel. We must, of 
course, reject the notion that Paul regarded his sufferings as making 
Atonement for sin, like those of Christ—The addition pera dé6En¢ aiwviov 
points to the future completion of the salvation. It directs special atten- 
tion to an element contained in the owrypia, and does not contrast the 
positive with the negative conception (Heydenreich). 

Vv. 11-13. In order to arouse the courage of faith, Paul has been direct- 
ing attention to the resurrection of Christ and to His own example; he 
now proceeds, in a series of short antithetical clauses, to set forth the rela- 
tion between our conduct here and our condition hereafter. This he 
introduces with the words motd¢ 6 Adyoc. [XXVId.] The yép following 


1Hofmann rightly remarks: “The apostle sponsibility, if he did not help those destined 
names those towards whom he has to fulfill for salvation to that for which God ordainea 
his. calling, for the elect’s sake, because this them.” - 
designation denotes the heaviness of his re- 


‘ 


CHAP. I. 11-13. 231 
seems, indeed, to make the words a confirmation of the thought previ- 
ously expressed, as in 1 Tim. iv. 9 (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt); but Paul only uses this formula to con- 
firm a general thought. There is, however, no general thought in the 
preceding words, where Paul is speaking only of his own personal cir- 
cumstances. Hence the formula must, as in 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, be referred 
here to what follows, and yap explained by “namely” (so, too, van 
Oosterzee).—We cannot say for certain whether the sentences following 
are really strophes from a Christian hymn! or not; still it is not improba- 
ble that they are, all the more that the same may be said of 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
The first sentence runs: ei ovvareddvopev Kai ovfjoouev] ovv refers to Christ, 
expressing fellowship, and not merely similarity. De Wette points us to 
Rom. vi. 8 for an explanation of the thought; but the context shows that 
he is not speaking here of spiritual dying, the dying of the old man, 
which is the negative element of regeneration (against van Oosterzee), but 
of the actual (not merely ideal) dying with Christ. In other words, he is 
speaking of sharing in the same sufferings which Christ endured (so also 
Hofmann), and whose highest point is to undergo death. The meaning 
therefore is: “if we in the faith of Christ are slain for His sake;” comp. 
Phil. iii. 10; also Rom. viii. 17; Matt. v.11; John xv. 20, and other pas- 
sages, The aorist cvvaredavouer is either to be taken: “if we have entered 
into the fellowship of His death,” or it denotes the actual termination : 
“ ifya® are dead with Him, we shall also live with Him.”—ov{joouev, cor- 
responding to ovvareddvouev, is not used of the present life in faith, but of 
the future participation in Christ’s glorified life (so, too, Hofmann) ; comp. 
1 Thess. v. 10.—Ver. 12. The second sentence runs: ¢ trouévouer, Kat 
ovBaciAevoouev| This sentence corresponds with the previous one in both 
members; comp. Rom. will. 17, where ovurdoyew and ovrdogacdauev are 
opposed to one another. On ovufac., comp. Rom. v. 17 (év Com Baovdeboove:) ; 
it denotes participation in the reign of the glorified Messiah.? Like death 
and life, so are enduring and reigning placed in contrast.—The third sen- 
tence is a contrast with the two preceding: «i aprycéueda, sc. Xprordv] 
comp. Matt. x. 33; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4; used here specially of the verbal 
denial of Christ, made through fear of suffering. kaxeivoc apvjoetar nuac : 
“he will not recognize us as His own,” the result of which will be that we 
remain in a state without grace and without blessing. The meaning of 
this sentence is confirmed by ver. 13.—ei amotovmev, éxeivog muoto¢ pévec] 
azote does not mean here: “ not believe, be unbelieving ”* (Mark xvi. 
11, 16; Acts xxviii. 24), but—in correspondence with dapveicta— be un- 
faithful,” which certainly implies lack of that genuine faith from which 
the faithful confession cannot be separated. In Rom. iii. 3 also, unbelief 


1Miinter, Ueber die dlteste christliche Poesie, 
p. 29, and Paulus, Memorabilia, i. 109. 

2The ov¢qv begins for the believer imme- 
diately after his’ death (Phil. i. 23; comp. 
also Luke xxiii. 43); the guuBactdAevery not 
till after Christ’s tapovoia; comp. Hofmann. 


3Such is the explanation of Chrysostom, 
who gives Christ’s resurrection as the sub- 
ject of unbelief: ei amotodmev, OTe avéeotn, 
ovdévy amo €xecvos, and 
assigns to apvyjcac@a yap éavt. ov Suv. the 
strange signification of ovx €xet dvaww mH elvac, 


TovTov BAamTeTat 


232 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


and unfaithfulness go together, since the people of Israel, to whom the 
Adyta Ocovd Were given, showed themselves unfaithful to God by rejecting 
the promised Messiah, and this after God had chosen them for His 
people.—éxeivog miotd¢ péver] miotég can only mean “faithful.” The faith- 
fulness of the Lord is shown in the realization of His decree—both in 
acknowledging and in rejecting; the context preceding shows that the 
latter reference predominates.—The next words confirm this truth: 
apvgcac8ar yap éavrov ov divarat, Which declare the azoria of the Lord to 
be an impossibility, since it involves a contradiction of Himself, of His 
nature. 

Ver. 14. [On Vv. 14-21, see Note XX VIL., pages 243-245.] In this verse 
the apostle goes on to set before Timothy how he is to conduct himself in 
regard to the heresy appearing in the church.—raira sropipvyoKe) 
[X XVII a.] raira refers to the thoughts just expressed and introduced by 
the formula ziori¢ 6 Adyoc; of these thoughts Timothy is to remind the 
church, not future teachers in particular (Heydenreich). The apostle 
says trouvgoKerv, because these thoughts were known to the church; 
comp. 2 Pet. 1. 12 (ov ayeAgow . .. bude bropupvhoxen . . . Kairep eiddrac).— 
Stawaptupouevog évoriov Tov Kvpiov] iv. 1; 1Tim. v.21. With the reading 
Aoyouayer (see the critical remarks) these words belong to what precedes, 
a new section beginning with 7) Aoyoudyer; on the other hand, with the 
Ree. ph Royouayeiv, the infinitive depends on dvayzapr. Hofmann wishes to 
take the Rec. imperatively ; but to give an imperative force to an infini- 
tive standing among several imperatives, would be something unheard 
of—It can hardly be decided which is the right reading. De Wette and 
Wiesinger have declared themselves for the Rec., because “the verb 
d:auapt. is commonly used by Paul for introducing exhortations, and is 
not in keeping with the weak appeal raira tropuiurvyone.” These reasons, 
however, are not sufficient, since dvawapr. may quite as well be connected 
with what precedes as with what follows, although it does not occur else- 
where in the N. T. in such a connection; and raira izou. is not used by 
the apostle in so weak a sense that he could not strengthen it by such a 

form of adjuration. Nor can it be maintained that the exhortation jj 
Aoyouayer is unsuitable for Timothy, since there is again at ver. 16 an 
exhortation quite similar in nature; comp. also ver. 23. There is more 
force in Reiche’s observation : supervacaneum .. . fuisset, Timotheo, uno 
quasi halitu bis fere idem imperare, ju) Aoyoudyer, and ver. 16, rac OF... 
kevodwviac tepiictaco ; but, on the other hand, 7 Aoyoudyec is a suitable addi- 
tion to the exhortation : raita brouiwvyoxe. On the whole, seeing that the 
transition from the one exhortation to the other is somewhat abrupt, and 
that the authorities are mostly on the side of the Rec., this reading should 
be preferred—On the conception of. Aoyouaye, comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4.—ei¢ 
[éx’] obdiv yphoyov] Regarding this appended clause in apposition, see 
Winer, p. 497 [E. T. p. 533]. yproruoc is a word which only occurs here; 
in Tit. iii. 9 the Cyr#oere Of the heretics are called avadedeic Kat pataror.—ént 
Katactpo¢h Tov axovdvtar] “which is useful for nothing, (serving rather) to the 
perversion of the hearers ; Chrysostom : ov povov ovdév &k ToLVTOV KéndoC, aAAa 


CHAP. Ir. 14, 15. 233 


kai BAaBy 70AAG.—Kataotpooy (opposed to rH oixodouq) here and in 2 Pet. ii. 
16, where it has its proper meaning; it is synonymous with «aaipeore in 
Z Cor. xiii 10. ’Exié here does not express the aim (Gal. v. 18; Eph. ii. 
10), but the result (Wiesinger). Xenophon, Memor. ii.19: éxi B24Bn. 

Ver. 15. [X XVII 6.] Continuation of the exhortation to Timothy.— 
arovdacov ceavtov JdKyuov rapactioat 7H OH] orovdafew expresses the eager 
striving, as in Eph. iv. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 17, etc., and has a suggestion of mak- 
ing haste, iv. 9, 21; Tit. ili. 12—déxuov, equivalent to probatus, tried, is 
absolute, and should not to be taken with épyaryv (Luther, Mack). A more 
precise limitation is given in the next words: rapactjoac 6 OG; comp. 
Rom. vi. 13, 16, and other passages in the Pauline epistles; here it has 
the additional meaning: “for the service of.” Hofmann gives an unsuit- 
able construction by joining 76 @cé—in spite of rapacr#oar—with déxipov 
(= “approved by one”), separating épyatyv averaicyvytov from one 
another, and connecting épyaryy with déxuov, so that averaicyvytov forms a 
second predicate to épydryv, opforouovvra «.7.A. being added as a third. All 
this not only assigns to déxiwoc a meaning which it never has in the N. T, 
(not even in Rom. xiv. 18; comp. Meyer on the passage), but separates 
mapaorqoat from the 76 Geo standing next to it, although Paul almost never 
uses the word without adding a dative of the person (comp. in particular, 
Rom. vi. 13, xii. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 27).—épydrnv averaé 
oxvvtov] épydtnc specially de opere rustico; used, besides, of the work in 
the field of God’s kingdom (2 Cor. xi. 18; Phil. iti. 2)—averaioyuvroc; in 
the N. T. a azag Aey., and in classic Greek used only in Sp. as an adverb 
with the signification: “immodestly, shamelessly.” It is synonymous 
with avaicyvvtoc, which in classic Greek is used only in a bad sense: “ one 
who is not ashamed when he ought to be.” It cannot, of course, have 
this meaning here. The most reliable interpretation is to keep by the 
fundamental meaning of the word taken in a good sense: “who is not 
ashamed, because he has nothing to be ashamed of.’ Bengel: cui tua 
ipsius conscientia nullum pudorem incutiat; de Wette, Wiesinger, van 
Oosterzee, Plitt translate it simply: “who has nothing to be ashamed of.” 
Hofmann arbitrarily explains it as equivalent to: “of whom God is not 
ashamed,” a meaning suitable to the context only if dé«woc be taken in 
the sense he maintains. The next words make the definition still more 
precise: dpforouovvta tov Adyov tio aAyVeiac] opdoroueiv, atak Aey., 1s rightly 
explained by most as recte tractare (which is the actual translation of the 
Vulgate); but there is very great variety in the derivation of the notion. 
Melanchthon, Beza, and others derive the expression ab illa legali victi- 
marum sectione ac distributione Ley. i.6; Vitringa, from the business 
Tov olxovduov, Cul competat panem cibosque frangere, distribuere filiis fami- 
lias; Pricaeus, a lapicidis; Lamb. Bos, from the ploughers, qui arantes 
réuverv Thy yay, oxile et Exicxilecy apovpac dicuntur, yet in such a way that it 


1The harm of Aoyouaxetvy consists not so contention” (Hofmann), as in this, that those 
much in this, “that its tendency with those who give ear to it are led away from the 
who listen to it is to make the Christian doc- fundamental principles of Christianity. 
trine seem uncertain, since it produces such 


234 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


is committed to those qui rectas vias insistunt. De Wette (Wiesinger 
agreeing With him) maintains the latter; recte secare viam, Aéyov being 
put for ddév. Certainly réuverv is often joined with 6déc, xéAevdoc ; but it 
does not follow that in dpYorouerv by itself there is contained a reference to 
the way.) As little can we say that any other of the references is con- 
tained in it. .The word in itself means: “cut rightly,” or, according to 
Pape: “cut straight, in straight direction ;” then, the notion of réuvew fali- 
ing into the background, as is often the case with xavoroyeiv, it has the 
more general signification: “deal rightly with something so as not to 
falsify it.”’—Hofmann’s explanation is curious: “cut straight through 
ihe word of truth, é. e. cut it, so that it is a straight cut, passing into the 
heart of it, whereas a slanting cut would not reach the inner part of the 
word of God, but only touch the outwork.” This explanation—apart 
from other reasons—is refuted by the fact that dp¥oroveiy has not the signi- 
fication: “cut through the middle point.” The Gloss. ordinar. explains 
it: secundum competentiam singulorum, ut: altis spiritualia, lae distri- 
buere parvulis, so that Paul is directing Timothy to preach the word 
according to his hearers’ capacity of understanding. This is the meaning 
also according to Luther’s translation: “who rightly parts the word of 
truth;” but the thought is entirely foreign to the context.~—Chrysostom 
explains it by réuvecv ra vida kai ta ToraiTa éxkérTew; SO, too, Oecumenius; 
but this is unsuitable, for there is nothing false in the Aéyo¢ rice aAné., and 
therefore nothing to be separated from it—The expositors are quite wrong 
who refer the expression to a life in accordance with God’s word=karé 76 
evayyéduov ophérata Bi.vv.—The right interpretation makes it the simple 
opposite of kamyAebvew tov Adyov Tov Geov, 2 Cor. ii. 17.4 

Ver. 16. Tac dé BeBpAove Kevodwriag (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 20), repiictaco] 
“avoid” (comp. Tit. ii. 9, synonymous with éxrpérecfa, 1 Tim. vi. 20); 
properly: “go out of the way.” Beza is wrong: cohibe, i.e. observa et 
velut obside, nempe ne in ecclesiam irrepant.—The reason for the exhorta- 
tion follows in the next words: émi rAeiov yap rpoKdéyovow doeBeiac] mpoxdrrecy 
here is intransitive (comp. iii. 9, 18), and dceBeiac is the genitive depend- 
ing on ézi rieiov,o not the accusative, as if zpox. had here the transitive 


- 


1De Wette, indeed, appeals to LXX. Proy. 
iii. 6, xi. 5; but in these passages od6v appears, 
and the verb, like the Vw, has the transitive 
signification: “ make straight, smooth.’=—-Nor 
does the passage in Eurip. Rhes. v. 422: ev@ecav 
Adywv Téeuvwy KeAcvOor, justify de Wette’s ex- 
planation. The possibility of substituting 
Adyor for odov is not proved simply by remark- 
ing that “the word isa way.” We certainly 
do speak of “ walking in the path of the divine 
word, of virtue,” ete., but not of “walking in 
the divine word, in virtue.” 

2Perhaps the expression may be explained 
in this way, that the imparting of the Adyos 
THs adnBeias makes it necessary to part it, 
since only a part of it can be delivered each 


time; it therefore amounts to saying that this 


parting is to be done rightly, so that the Adyos 
THs adnOeias may receive no injury. 

%In Beza’s explanation: nihil praetermit- 
tere, quod dicendum sit, nil adjicere de suo, 
nil mutilare, discerpere, torquere, deinde 
diligenter spectare, quid ferat auditorum 
captus, the first part alone is to the point. 

4In the Fathers the word ép@oTou/a is some- 
times found synonymous with op@odogta. 
Clemens Alex. Stromata, vii. p. 762: thv amo- 
OTOALKHY ExKAnGLacTLKHY Gwgwy OpPoTOMiav TOV 
Soynatwv; but this usage took its rise from 
the above passage. 

5In Diod. Sicul. there occurs: émi micro 
kaxias mpoBaivew; see Bengel on the passage. 


CHAP. 1. 16-18. 235 


meaning “to further.” The subject is formed by the heretics whom the 
apostle has in mind, not the Kevopwria, as 6 Adyoc avtov shows. Hence 
Luther's translation is incorrect : “it (evil talking) helps much to ungodly 
character ;” besides, it puts the present for the future. Bengel: Futu- 
rum, proprie; est enim praedictio, ut ée:, ver. 17 ; comp. ii. 3 ff., 6. Hof- 
mann wishes a distinction to be made between those who deal in ef. 
xevogwriat and those to whose number Hymenacus and Philetus belong: 
and according to him, the subject should be taken from the op éo71 «.7.2., 
so as to mean the followers of these two heretics. We cannot, however, 
understand why Paul should not have included among the fe. Kevopwriare 
the heresy that the resurrection had already taken place, unless this ex- 
pression be greatly weakened, as Hofmann indeed does, to favor his view 
of the heresy at Ephesus (see Introduction, @ 4). In any case, it is a mis- 
take to take the subject for xpoxdpovew only from what follows, since such 
subject does not present itself naturally ; and there is least ground of all 
for supposing that it must be ot repi ‘Yuévacov kai diAnré6v.—The yap, which 
refers only to the sentence immediately preceding, makes the increasing 
godlessness of the heretics the reason why Timothy should not meddle 
further with the xevodwviar, but simply oppose to them the word of truth. 

Ver. 17. The increase of the doé8era is closely connected with the fur- 
ther spread of the heresy. On this point the apostle says: Kai 6 Adyo¢ avTav 
de yayypacva voi é&&er] yayypawa, [XXVIT c.] an eating ulcer, like cancer, 
called in Galen the cold burn (c@akedoc) ; vouny &xEew=ve we (Acts iv. 17: 
inl rAeciov dravéuecbar), “eat into the flesh, spread ;” comp. Polybius (ed. 2. 
Tauchnitz), i. 4, viii. 5: % row rvpd¢ vou7 is equivalent to the spreading of 
fire; i. 81,6, used of an ulcer (Pape, s.v. vouy).—Jerome, Hp. ad Galat. + 
doctrina perversa, ab uno incipiens, vix duos aut tres primum in exordic 
auditores reperit, sed paulatim cancer serpit in corpore. The body on 
which the gangrene is found, and in which it spreads ever wider, is the 
church. He is therefore speaking here not so much of the intensive in- 
crease of the evil (Mack, Wiesinger) in those attacked by it, as of its exten- 
sive diffusion (so most expositors), thinking, at the same time, of the ever 
deepening mark which it is making on the inner life of the church. 
Chrysostom rightly says: ro wavy Avuaiverar; but his further explanation is’ 
not apposite : évraifa 7d adiépbwrov avtav d1/Aoi, for the apostle does not say 
here that the heretics are beyond amendment.—Of these heretics Paul 
mentions two: Hymenaeus and Philetus, of whom nothing further is 
known, except that the former is possibly the same as the one named in 
1 Tim. i. 20 (see on that passage). 

Ver. 18. More precise description of the heretics, in the first place gen- 
erally, as men who “have erred in regard to the truth” (de Wette).—repi tiv 
GApbevav notdynoav] see 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21. The chief point in their heresy 
is given thus: 2éyovte¢ tiv avdoraoww On yeyovévac.—Both Irenaeus and Ter- 
tullian mention Gnosties, who denied the resurrection in its literal sense.’ 


1CGomp. Tertullian, De Resurr. chap. asséverantes ipsam etiam mortem spirit 
xix. : resurrectionem mortuorum distorquent ualiter intelligendam . .. resurrectionem 


236 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


There is no ground for Baur’s assertion, that there is allusion here vo 
Marcion. The passage in 1 Cor. xv. 12 proves that the doctrine of tne 
resurrection of the dead had even in the apostolic age become a stumbling- 
block to many in the church.—The denial of these heretics was closely 
related to views which made a false contrast between flesh and spirit.— 
They had already exercised an injurious influence on others, as the next 
words declare: kai avatpérover tiv twav riotw] not: “whereby they make 
many err in their persuasion :” ziorvv is the Christian faith which includes 
the certainty of the future resurrection, and avarpérew (see Tit. i. L1) 
means “ evertere, destroy.” 
Ver. 19. As a contrast to the unsettling action of the heretics, we have 
6 pévtoe ateped¢ Beuédvog Tov Oeov éotyKev] Oeuédv0c (properly an adjective, 
supply Aifoc) is originally the foundation-stone of a building; if that signi- 
fication be retained here, the building can only mean the church of 
Christ. The question then arises, what is its foundation-stone? and to 
this various answers have been given. Ambrosius understands it to be 
God’s promises; Bengel, the fides Dei immota; Heinrichs, the Christian 
religion ; Ernesti, the doctrine of the resurrection (ver. 18) ; Calvin, the 
election of grace. All this is arbitrary. The éeuéAvoc must be something 
which, according to the next verse, can also be regarded as oixia, [XX VII 
d.] viz. as Heydenreich says: éxkAjola reOeweduouérn rd Ocod (similarly de 
Wette and Wiesinger). Paul, however, calls it @euéAoc, not because that 
word denotes a building, which is not the case, but because the church, as 
it was originally set by God in the world, only forms the foundation of the 
building which is to be perfected gradually (so, too, van Oosterzee). Chry- 
sostom’s explanation is inapposite: ai orepeal Wuyal éorhxacr merqyviar Kai 
axivnrot; for Paul is not thinking here of individual believers, but of the 
church of which they are members. Possibly the @euéAcoe does not mean 
anything definite, and the apostle “ merely intends to say that the church 
is frmly founded” (Hofmann); but that is not probable, especially as the 
attribute oreped¢ and the verb éoryxev point to a definite, concrete concep- 
tion in the apostle’s mind.—crepede and éornxev form a contrast to avarpé- 
-rovot. Though the faith of some may be destroyed, the foundation of 
God, i.e. which God’ has laid, still stands firm, unwavering —The mark 
of this is given in the next words: éyov tiv o¢payida tabtyr] odpayic, “the 
seal,” is partly a means of keeping safe, partly a sign of relevancy, 
partly a form of declaration whereby a document or the like is proved to 
be valid. Here it is the inscription! on the @exéAuc, according to Wies 
inger, “asa guarantee that the éxxAyoia ixd tov Ocod reOeweAvouévn has an 
existence not to be shaken;” or, better still, as God’s testimony to the 
peculiar nature of the structure (similarly Hofmann: “because through 
it God so acknowledges the structure as to declare of what nature He 
means it tobe when thus founded”); van Oosterzee combines the two 


eam vindicandam, qua quis addita veritate 1The figure is-founded on the custom of 
redanimatus et revivifactus Deo, ignorantide placing inscriptions on the door-posts as well 
morte decussa, velut de sepulcro yeteris as on the foundation-stones; comp. Deut. vi. 
hominis eruperit. 9, Xi. 20; Rev. xxi. 14, 


CHAP. I. 19, 20. 237 


interpretations—Paul mentions two inscriptions. The first, with allusion 
to Num. xvi. 5 (the LXX. puts PV! for PYV)), is éyvw Kipioc rove bvrac 
abrov. Haec sententia ...a parte Dei (Wolf)—éy] Bengel: novit 
-amanter, nec nosse desinit, sed perpetuo servat suos: a word of comfort 
for the believers exposed to the destroying influence of the heretics in the 
church. The other inscription (with which we may compare Num. xvi. 
26; Isa. lii. 11) runs: aroarhitw amd adixiac Tag 6 dvouatwv TO dvoua Kupiov| 

- Haec sententia . . . a parte hominum (Wolf). ’Advuxia is the sum total of 
everything opposed to God, including heresy.—ovoyatew 1o dv. T. Kup., 
according to Wahl, is equivalent to mim ova 8p, nomen Dei invocare. 
This is incorrect; it corresponds rather to the phrase : émkadciobar TO Svop. 
kupiov (Tov Kbpiov, ver. 22). Bengel correctly says: quisquis nominat 
nomen Christi, ut domini sui—This second inscription is an exhortation 
to believers to abstain from all unrighteousness notwithstanding the 
seductive influence of the heretics—Heydenreich : two truths must like- 
wise characterize the indestructible temple of God, the church, and these 
denote the comfort and hope, but also the duty and responsibility of the 
true worshipers of Jesus." 

Ver. 20. To the church as the epéArog tov Ocov only those belong whom 
the Lord acknowledges as His, and who abstain from every kind of advxia. 
This thought is contained in ver. 19. But there were also in the church 
ddcxor, opposing the gospel by word and deed. This strange fact Paul now 
explains by a figure: év peyady dé oixia] The Greek expositors understand 
by oixia “the world,” to which Calvin rightly objects : ac contextus quidem 
huc potius nos ducit, ut de ecclesia intelligamus ; neque enim de extraneis 
disputat Paulus, sed de ipsa Dei familia. Itis different with the similar 
passage in Rom. ix. 21 ff.—ov« gore udvov oKein xpvoa Kai apyupa, ahaa Kat 
Ebquva Kal doTpdxiva] By the former articles are meant the worthy, genuine 
members of the church; by the Jatter, those not genuine (not: those less 
good, Estius, Mosheim, and others) : “each class, however, contains degrees 
within itself; comp. Matt. xiii. 23” (Wiesinger). The apostle’s distinction 
is given more precisely in the next words, which cannot be referred alike 
to each of the two classes named, but express the same antithesis: cai @ 
pév ev¢ Tysqv, Viz. the oKeby Xp. K. dpy.; @ dé cic arisiav, Viz. the oxeby Sv. K. 
botpax, [XXVILe.] To this Hofmann objects, that the material of the 
vessels does not determine their purpose and use, and that the second 
clause, therefore, does not correspond with the first; “ the first antithesis 
rather declares that in the house of God there are members of rich gifts 
and spiritual attainments, and members whose gifts are few and who 
spiritually are of no consideration.” But in this way there is manifestly 
imported an antithesis of which there is no hint in the context. It is 
indeed true that vessels even of wood and clay may be applied to honor- 
able uses; but undue pressure is laid on the apostle’s words when they are 


1Chrysostom understands @ewéALos of in- éxew emi TOV TpayLaTwV, amd Tov yvwpiferbas 
dividual believers, and is therefore compelled brd ToD @cod Kal py ocuptaparoAdAvabat, ara 
to give this thought an incorrect reference: rod adiotavar amd adikias, TAUTS Ta yrwplo- 


xodev SyAat cigiv; avd TOU Ta Ypaupata TAvTG pata TOU Oepedtov. 


238 THE SECOND EPiSTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


interpreted in accordance with such a possibility —ei¢ tyu#v and ei¢ atimiav 
do not refer to the house, nor to their possessor, on whom they bring 
honor or shame (Matthies), but to the vessels themselves (de Wette, Wies- 
inger, van Oosterzee). To some honor is given, to others shame, i. e. in 
the various uses to which they are applied by their possessors. The inser- 
tion of éroiacpéva Would give an unsuitable thought; see Meyer and de 
Wette on Rom. ix, 21. 

Ver. 21. Without explaining the figure, the apostle carries it on, but in 
such a way as to show to the members of the church how each one may 
become a vessel to honor.—éav obv tig éxxabdpy éavtov ard TobTwr] éExxabaipew, 
according to classic Greek (also 1 Cor. vy. 7), is an intensive form of ka6ai- 
pew (N. T. xaSapifew).1 The opinion (formerly expressed in this commen- 
tary) was incorrect, that é« only foreshadows the azé rotrw. The transla- 
tion is inaccurate: “if one keeps himself pure” (Heydenreich, equivalent 
to Kabapov, adyvov égavrov typeiv); Luther rightly: “ purifies himself.’ The 
word indicates the departure from impure companionship; comp. ver. 19, 
azoorAtw, and 1 Tim. vi. 5 (according to Rec.) agicraco ard tev TowbTwr.? 
Wiesinger makes the construction pregnant: “separate oneself from 
these by self-purification;” it is more correct, however, to regard the 
separation itself as the purification—da7d robrwy] cannot according to the 
context be taken as a collective neuter: “from such things,” a7d ray 
elpnuévav, Hyovv adikiac, atyuiac, OY eVeN amd Tov BEBHAwY Kevodovidv, Ver. 16; 
it refers rather to @ dé ei¢ atyiav. Luther: “from such people;” comp. 
the passage quoted, 1 Tim. vi. 5. Hofmann is altogether mistaken in his 
curious idea that az6 7oitwy means “ from that time forward,” and is to be 
connected with what follows. This reference is nowhere in the N. T. 
expressed by azd robrwv (comp. Matt. xxvi. 29: az’ dpe); besides, this 
more precise definition of éora is quite superfluous, whereas éxxafapy 
éavtév Without more precise definition is too general.—éorar oxevog cig Tour, 
jytacuévov] Lachmann has wrongly deleted the comma between tw. and 
yyvaon. Hic does not depend on #y., but ox. ei¢ tu. forms here, like 4 pév 
ei¢ Tyuqv in ver. 20, one idea to which various attributes, jy:acuévov being 
’ the first, are added in order'to describe the nature of such a ox. ei¢ tiy.— 
yylaouévov] is NOt =oxevoc éxAoyjc, Acts ix. 14 (Heydenreich), but: “ sanc- 
tified,” as belonging to the Lord. Eiypyorov = “ good for using ;” 76 deorérn, 
“the master of the house ;” ei¢ wav épyov ayabdy yroyacuévov (comp. Rev. ix. 
7), “prepared for every good work.” While all expositors join 7@ deorérn 
with ed ypyorov, Hofmann prefers to refer it to what follows, without giving 
any reason for so doing. Elsewhere in the N. T. eiypyoroe occurs only in 
connection with the dative of more precise definition (iv. 11; Philem. 11). 

Ver. 22. [On Vv. 22-26, see Note XXVIII.; page 245.] Timothy is 
exhorted to Christian behavior; it is impossible to overlook the connec- 


1Chrysostom rightly says: ov« ele: kaOapp, the doctrine of predestination: Volumus et 


adX’ éxxabapy, TOVTEOTL, TaVTEAMS Kabapy. efficimus, sed per eum qui gratis et in soli- 
2 Bengel remarks: Activum cum pronomine dum efficit in nobis bonam et efficacem vo- 
reciproco indicat liberrimam facultatem fide- — luntatem, tum quod ad é:a@eouv, tum quod ad 


lium.—Beza seeks, on the other hand, to save tvepyecay attinet. 


CHAP. U1. 21-24. 239 


tion with what precedes.—rac dé vewrepuxag éxOuuiac)] [XXVIII a.] vewre- 
pikai is am. Aey., Juveniles, quibus juvenes indulgent, not cupiditates rerum 
noyarum. Chrysostom and Theophylact rightly remark that the meaning 
is not to be limited too closely to zopveia.1| Hofmann supposes that the 
desires are meant which are found in younger members in contrast with 
those advanced in years, e.g. the desire for brilliant gifts and offices; but 
neither the context nor the expression supports his interpretation. This 
reference is rather a pure importation into the text, and is adopted by 
Hofmann that it may agree with his erroneous view of ver. 20; it is 
opposed, finally, by the diwxe dixavoobvyv K.t.A.—diwxe dé dixavoobvyv k.7.A.] 
very similar to 1 Tim. vi. 11.—eip#v7y, “i. e. inner fellowship and harmony ” 
(de Wette)—yeré should not be construed with diwxe, but with eipyvyy; 
comp. Heb. xii. 14.—jerad mavtwv tr. érixadovuévov tov kipcov] This expression 
occurs somewhat frequently as a name for Christians; comp. Acts ii. 21, 
ix. 14; Rom. x. 12. The passage in 1 Cor.i. 2 shows that Christ is meant 
by xipioc.—éx xabapac kapdiac| belonging not to diwke but to émcadovpévor, 
stands here in special contrast to the heretics who did also call Christ their 
Lord, but not from a pure heart. Chrysostom’s remark: pera tov dAdwv 
ov xp} Tpaov elvac, goes too far, since in ver. 25 there is an express appeal 
for mpaérnc towards the avridcaribéuevor; still the believer can only keep 
peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart, the others he 
must oppose. Eip#vy is mentioned last, because the apostle is thinking of 
it specially ; comp. the next verses. 

Ver. 28 is in contrast (dé) with ver. 22. As in 1 Tim. i. 4, vi. 4, Cyrjoe 
are brought forward as the characteristic of heresy. Paul calls them 
pwpat kai araidevtor] pwpai, Tit. iii. 9—araidevto, properly, “uninstructed ;” 
in N.T. az. Aey.; more frequently found in LXX. and Apocrypha, but 
only in reference to persons. It is synonymous with pwpdc (7°02); even 
here, where it refers to things, it is synonymous with popé¢ (= ineptus). 
There is no just ground for Hofmann’s supposition, that it is to be derived 
here not from radevecba, but from madevew, and hence that it means 
“unsuited for educating spiritually” (Mosheim, Heydenreich, Mack, 
Matthies) —On rapa:rov, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11.—eidé¢ does not give the 
reason why Timothy should follow the exhortation (equivalent to “ since, 
or because, you know”); it forms part of the exhortation in the sense: 
“as you know (consider); ” comp. Tit. iii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 58; Col. iii. 24, 
iv. 1.—érz yevvoor payac] waya, Jas. iv. 1,synonymous with wéAeuor ; opposed 
to eipyvn, ver. 22. 

Vv. 24-26. In regard to the last thoughts, Paul gives a sketch of the 
conduct which beseems the dodAo¢ kupiov. Aovaoe kupiov is here, as often, one 
who has been charged with the office of preaching the gospel —0d dei na y- 
eofa:] [XXVIII b.] Luther is inaccurate : “must not be disputatious ;”’ it 
does not denote so much the disposition as the act, and is in close relation 
with the preceding udyac; it furnishes the reason, therefore, why he 
should not devote himself to foolish investigations, which only give rise 


1Theodoret: tpubyy, yéAwros tuctpiay, O-Exv Kcvny Kat Ta TovTOLS MpoTomota. 


240 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


to contentions.—aA/’ #rwv eivar epic mavrac | qmoc, here and at 1 Thess. ii. iis 
“amiable, friendly ;” properly, “addressing in a friendly manner;” it 
forms a pointed antithesis to ua yecAar.—didaxrixdv (1 Tim. iii. 2). Hoe non 
solum soliditatem et facilitatem in docendo, sed vel maxime patientiam 
et assiduitatem significat, Bengel. According to the context here, the 
word expresses not only the ability, but also the willingness to teach— 
avetixaxov] am. Aey. (aveEtcaxia, Eeclus. ii. 19, kindred in meaning with é7uei- 
ceca), denotes the opposite of irritability : “ patient, submissive” in regard to 
contradiction (perhaps slanderous).—Ver. 25. év zpaéryti is wrongly joined 
by Luther with avegixaxov : “ who can endure the wicked with gentleness ; ” 
it belongs rather to what follows, and describes the manner of raWebew.— 
raweve 18 here equivalent not to erudire, but to corripere. Luther: 
“punish,” set right, see 1 Tim. i. 20.—rod¢ avtidiaribepévove] am. Aey., Synony- 
mous with avrAéyorrec, Tit. i. 9, and denoting all opposed to the word 
of truth preached by the dovéoc xvpiov. The context compels us to inter- 
pret it not as “the unbelievers ” (Hofmann), but specially the heretics. 
The name, however, is not given to them because they are “weak in 
faith ” (Wiesinger). Luther’s translation is too strong : “ contumacious;” 
comp. with this passage Tit. i. 9,138. The rule here laid down is not in 
contradiction with the &Aeyye aitoi¢ aroréuwc, Tit. i. 18, not because the 
avridiariéuevor here are different from the avriAéyovtec Of Tit. i. 9, as Hof- 
mann maintains, but because even with the éaéyyevv amoréuwe there should 
also be the év xpaéryr raidevew. The purpose which should guide the servant 
of the Lord in his conduct towards the avridvatiéuevor is given in the next 
words.—pqrore dO avtoic 6 Bede petdvorav] pArore, “ whether it may not be,” 
is joined with the conjunctive and the optative; comp. Buttmann, p. 22 
LE. T. 256]. The veravora is here supposed to be necessary because the ground 
of opposition is aducia; petdvoa is the change of thought which is necessary 
ele éxiyvwow dAnbeiac—Ver. 26. Kai avavyywow &k THE TOV dLaBdAov rayidoc] In 
the verb avavfgew, the ava may express motion from beneath, as in other 
verbs thus compounded (e.g. avaféw), so that it is equivalent to “become 
sober,” 7.e. “come up out of the stupefaction which holds them down”. 
- (Hofmann '); but the usual meaning of the word in classic Greek is, how- 
‘ever, “become sober again.” If the word has this meaning here, then 
‘the dvridvaréuevor must be the heretics. The error into which they had 
fallen is to be compared with the intoxication which beclouds men’s Wits ; 
the verb is az. Aey. In 1 Cor. xv. 34 we have éxvfdexv.—The figure rayic is 
certainly not in harmony with this verb; but a collocation of various figu- 
rative expressions is not infrequent; here it is more easy to justify it, as 
an intermediate thought like kai pvcbéow (Heydenreich) may be at once 
supplied. The collocation may indeed be altogether avoided, if, with 
Michaelis and Hofmann, we connect éx tye... mayidog with swypyuévor 
following; but against this there is the signification of this word, which 
does not mean being saved, but being taken captive.—éfCwypyuévor br’ abrod 
ei¢ 70 éxeivov HéAnua| [XXVIII c.] Cwypet has here the same meaning as in 
1Hofmann appeals to avagqv, Rom. vii. 9, for this signification; but comp. Meyer on that 
passage. 


NOTES. 241 
Luke v.10: “catch,” the notion “alive” being allowed to fall into the 
background. It is questionable whether the devil or the dovAo¢ kupiov (ver. 
24) is to be regarded as the Cwypav. Several expositors, Wetstein, Bengel, 
Mack, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others, have declared themselves in 
favor of the second view. But against this there is the perfect, since the 
avavgge does not take place until they have been caught by the dovAo¢ Beod ;! 
besides, the meaning thus obtained would be open to the reproach of 
being too artificial.2~—With the jirst view (Matthies, de Wette, van Ooster- 
zee, Plitt) éwypyuévoc may be joined in a natural sense with the preceding 
rayidoc; Luther is therefore right: “ by whom they are caught at his will.” 
The last words: ei¢ . . . OéAnua, are by Beza joined with davav#wow: ad 
illius, nempe Dei, voluntatem, videlicet praestandam ; hunc enim locum 
sic esse accipiendum mihi videtur utriusque illius relativi pronominis 
. éxeivov) proprietas et ipsa constructio postulare. But éxeivov 
may very easily refer to the same subject as airov.A—As with Beza’s inter- 
pretation, éCwyp. ix. avrov, “would be made too bare” (de Wette), the 
additional clause under discussion is to be joined with é€wypyuévor, as in- 
deed it ought to be, according to its position.—Aretius takes the correct 
view of éCwyp., but wrongly explains the words ei¢ «.7.A. as equivalent to 
“according to God’s will, i.e. so long as God pleases.” Heinrichs, too, 
though he refers éxeivou rightly, wrongly says it is equivalent to ex suo 
arbitrio, pro suo lubitu. Eic stands here rather as in 2 Cor. x. 5; the 
HéAnua tov diaBddov is regarded “as a local sphere” into which they 
have been taken; see Meyer on the passage quoted. 


(aitov . . 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXYV. Vy. 1-7. 


(a) The emphatic ot of ver. 1 can only be explained by a reference to the 
persons alluded to in i. 15 f.—probably by way of contrast to of év rH ’Aoia. The 
words which follow, however, clearly indicate a connection with what precedes 
those verses. The particle oiv, accordingly, must be regarded as including all 
the previous context in itself—(b) The word évdvvayov is connected in thought 
with ovyxaxoradyoov of ver. 3 (comp. i. 6, 7 and i. 8). These verses relate to 
Timothy’s own condition and action. The second verse refers to what he is to 
do in respect to other teachers. With ver. 2 may be compared 1 Tim. i. 3 and 
Tit. i. 5, though here the exhortation may perhaps bear upon a succession of 
teachers who were to follow afterwards, while, in the other epistles, the reference 
is to those who were teaching errors, or to the appointment of presbyters in the 


1Hofmann does not acknowledge the val- 
idity of the objection: “The perfect partic. ex- 
presses nothing else than a condition abiding 
thenceforward;” but this “thenceforward” 
is quite unsuitable here, for in the connec- 
tion of eG¢wypnuévor with avavyywor that per- 
fect does not show the position into which 
they enter only by avavydery—and which re- 
mains thenceforward, but to the position in 


16 


which they were when the avavyndew took 
place. 

2This is valid also against Theophylact’s 
explanation: év mAavy vixovtar adAa Swypy- 
Gévres UTd Oeod .. . avavywouw ard Tov VdaTwv 
THs TAarns. 

3See the passage cited by de Wette; Plato, 
Cratylus, p. 430 E: det&ac atta av mév TUXN, 
éxeivou eixkova; comp. also Kthner, 2 629, A 3. 


242 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


churches. The insertion of ver. 2 in this place is somewhat strange, and the 
connection is somewhat loose. Yet it was not altogether out of place, in the set- 
ting forth of what Timothy was to be and do as a faithful worker in the Church, 
now that the Apostle was in prison and in danger of death, to call his attention, 
to the duty of seeing that the truth was committed to other faithful men who 
might unite with or follow him in the same great work.—(c) Tuvoroic avOpdroie 
(ver. 2)—The question whether a succession of teachers is here alluded to, is one of 
some uncertainty. Huther and a considerable number of the recent commentators 
maintain that such a succession was in the writer’s mind. The points on which 
the question turns are the following:—1l. Whether xai belongs to érépove or to 
dasa érépove, 2. What is the intended reference of érépovc. 3. Who are meant 
by ToAA@v paptripev, The third of these points bears only indirectly upon the 
decision. But it may, nevertheless, have a certain influence, which may prop- 
erly be considered. As to kai, there seems to be no special ground for affirming 
with Huther, against Hofmann, that it qualifies érépovg only. Paul may easily 
be supposed to have desired Timothy to commit the word to trustworthy persons, 
who had, in addition to other things, the particular quality of aptness to teach, 
and to have expressed this by xai. It must be admitted, however, that érepor seems 
somewhat better adapted to designate other teachers, than simply other persons, i. e. 
the ordinary hearers of the gospel. That érepoc may denote the latter cannot be 
denied, but the use of the word can be more readily accounted for, if the former 
meaning is given. The bearing of dca 70AA, apr. on the subject is connected with 
the question as to whether these words refer to the presbyters who participated 
in Timothy’s ordination. If they do, there is a certain probability, arising from 
this fact, that the Apostle’s mind was dwelling, throughout the passage, only on 
the committing of the truth to teachers and preachers. The reference to Timo- 
thy’s ordination is favored by many of the recent commentators. It is, however, 
to say the least, very doubtful. The most that can be affirmed, therefore, is that 
there is a slight probability that a succession of teachers is intended by érépovg. 
That there is anything in the words which necessarily implies the transmission 
of doctrine or truth independent of the common Scripture revelation, cannot be 
affirmed.—(d) ovykaxora6yoov (ver. 3) is undoubtedly parallel with the same 
verb in i. 8, and has the same meaning. R. V., however, renders in i. 8, 
suffer hardship with the gospel—making T@ evayyeAiw depend on ovv—while here 
’ it renders, in the text, suffer hardship with me, and, in the margin, take thy part 
in suffering hardship. The recent commentators are disposed to supply with 
me in i. 8, and to make T@ evay. mean for the gospel, as Huther and Note XXIII. ¢ 
above.—(e) The thought seems to pass, through the last clause of ver. 3, which 
suggests the readiness of the soldier to suffer, from ovykaxora@ycov to the more 
general ideas, which are unconnected with that verb, in vy. 4-7. These verses 
set forth the call upon the Christian preacher, to give himself wholly and faith- 
fully to his work—a thought which is presented under three figures:—1l. that of 
the soldier, who does not involve himself in the matters which belong to civil 
life; 2. that of the athlete, who contends in the games with hope of success only 
as he acts in accordance with the rules of the contest—giving up all things for, 
and subordinating all things to the attainment of the end, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24 ff; 
and 3. that of the husbandman, who partakes of the fruits only as he works hard 
for them. The same idea lies at the foundation of all the figures, and this 
explanation which regards them as a threefold presentation of a single thought, 


NOTES. 243 


is the simplest and most satisfactory one.-—(/) The object of ver. 7 seems to be to 
call Timothy’s especial attention to the thought suggested by these illustrative 
references, as bearing upon his own official life and work. yap, which Huther 
regards as a particle of explanation, can be understood, as Ell. and de W. take it, 
as causal. The demand in vdec may well be made, and it can be fulfilled, for, ete. 
The causal force of yap is so nearly universal in the N. T., that the presumption 
is strongly in favor of this sense. 


XXVI. Vv. 8-13. 


(a) The relation of ver. 8 to what precedes is indicated by the fact that 
xaxora@ is found in the first clause of ver. 9. This verb is connected in thought, 
evidently, with ovyxaxor. of ver. 3. The remembrance of Jesus Christ as risen 
from the dead is suggested as a means of strengthening Timothy (édvvayov) in 
the line of the endurance of suffering. The encouragement derived from this 
remembrance, however, is not founded on the fact that Christ suffered death, but 
that He had the victory over it. Accordingly, as Wiesinger remarks, the words 
éx orépuatog Aaveid do not refer at all to Christ’s humiliation. They “mark, as 
at Rom. i. 3, only His outward, visible nature in distinction from the invisible ; 
and in both relations, here as there, He appears exalted and glorified; since, 
according to the flesh, the promise given to the house of David is fulfilled in Him, 
and as risen from the dead, He is declared the Son of God in power nara mvevpa 
ay. Rom. i. 4.” Thus in this verse, as in Rom., Paul “comprises in these two 
predicates the substance of the gospel,” and “the clause ‘according to my gospel’ 
becomes perfectly intelligible.’—(b) The antecedent of © at the beginning of ver. 
9 is evayyé/uoy, 2. e. in the sphere of his work as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. 
Phil. i. The reference to his own suffering in the word xaxora06, is an indication 
that the civ in ovykaxor, of ver. 3 is to be taken with a pot to be supplied.—(c) 
The “not binding” of the word of God is evidently contrasted with the “binding” 
of the Apostle (ov dédeta:—deouov), and thus refers to the fact that the preaching 
of the gospel is not prevented by his imprisonment, and cannot be. For this 
reason he stedfastly endures, ete. The use of the word éxAexretc, as designating 
Christians, here, is probably connected with that of od dédera:—both expressions 
suggesting the idea of the Divine power, or purpose, as not to be overcome by any- 
thing that human opposition can do.—(d) Ver. 11—That ziord¢ 6 Adyoc refers 
here to what follows, is indicated by the fact that the following words are of the 
character which is suited to that phrase, while the preceding words are not so, 
either in themselves, or as they stand here in dépendence on iva, The yap, which 
introduces the following clauses apparently goes back in its force to the thoughts 
of the 9th and 10th verses. It thus passes over the phrase mor. 6 Ady. Huther, 
here as in ver. 7, takes yap in the sense of namely; but see note on that verse, 
above. As connected with vv. 9, 10, these successive clauses form a ground of 
encouragement and of warning. 


XXVII. Vv. 14-21. 


(a) The reference in raira of ver. 14 is to vv. 12, 13, or perhaps to vy. 8-13. 
The things spoken of in the following verses are among those which appertain to 
a denying of Him and a proving unfaithful to Him, The principal reference is 
to the erroneous teachings and doctrines, which are alluded to in all the Past. 


244 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Epp.; but there are, also, exhortations addressed to Timothy to guard himself 
against evils and dangers. The heresies are here described by the words 40) ouay- 
ew (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4), BeByAovg (comp. 1 Tim. i. 9, iv. 7, vi. 20), Kevopwviag 
(comp. 1 Tim. vi. 20), 7oréxnoav (comp. 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21), wwpag Cyryoere (comp. 
Tit. iii. 9), yevveor wayac (comp. Tit iii. 9). They are, moreover, additionally set 
forth here, in their injurious and destructive influence, as to no profit, subverting 
those who hear, eating as doth a gangrene, overthrowing faith, being ignorant 
questions; and their teachers are described as vessels unto dishonor, and taken 
captive by the devil (but see, on this last phrase, Note XX VIII ¢). Though in 
some of these additional points the statements are kindred to those found else- 
where, the description, as a whole, is the most full and detailed which the Apostle 
gives. There seems, however, to be nothing, in these verses, which marks any 
special growth or development as compared with the other two epistles—(b) Ver. 
15 sets forth the course to be pursued by Timothy with reference to his own office 
and work, as ver. 14 has pointed out what he should do in the way of reminding 
and charging the members of the church. In contrast with ver. 16, on the other 
hand, ver. 15 gives that which may be called the positive side of Timothy’s duty, 
while ver. 16 gives the negative side. In ver. 15 épydary#v aver, serves to define 
déxyov more particularly, and the clause opfotouovvra x.7.A, defines, still more par- 
ticularly, the words py av. The real point of the verse is thus found in opfor. 
x.7.A. This phrase is rendered by R. V. (1) in the text, by handling aright the 
word of truth, (2) in the margin, by holding a straight course in the, ete. (3) also in 
the margin, by rightly dividing the, ete., which last rendering is that of A. V. text. 
The translation of R. V. text is the one approved by Huther, who says the word 
in itself means to cut rightly, indeed, or cut straight (as Pape), but that the notion 
of réuvew falls into the background, and so the sense is to deal rightly with some- 
thing, so as not to falsify it. Alf. agrees with Huther. So Fairb. and others. EI. 
de W. and others connect the word more directly with the idea of cutting a way, or 
road, straight. Plumptre thinks the figure is connected with the accuracy of cut- 
ting essential in surgery. The view of R. V. text is, perhaps, the most satisfac- 
tory. —(c) That o¢ yayypaiva vou é€ec of ver. 17 is to be understood in an ex- 
tensive, rather than an intensive meaning, is shown by the fact that the thing 
which thus eats is 6 Adyo¢ ava, i.e. the teachings of the errorists which over- 
throw the faith of those who hear them, and by the general indication, in ver. 14, 
_ that the writer has the church, and the effect of true and false teaching upon the 
church, in mind. The marginal rendering of R. V., spread, accordingly, gives 
the sense in which eat is here used. It spreads like an, eating ulcer.—(d) The 
Geuédvog of ver. 19 must (as Huther says) be something which can be explained 
consistently with the use of oixia in ver. 20. It must, also, be something which 
can effectually stand against, and resist, all the teachers and doctrines which turn 
aside from the truth. And it must be something on which the inscriptions men- 
tioned can be conceived of as written. That these conditions may be fulfilled, 
and that the statement respecting the vessels in the house may be satisfactorily 
met, it would seem that the apostle must have in mind here the church. The 
church is, however, viewed under the figure of a building, and, in a certain sense, 
apart from its members. Not that the members do not compose the house, and 
make its foundation as well as the superstructure. But the figure pictures it as 
containing the members, and in it are vessels of different sorts. On the foundation 
of the building are inscribed two Divine declarations :—the first indicating that 





NOTES. 245 


the true disciples are safe in His care, “The Lord knoweth them that are His;” 
and the second calling them to their duty, “ Let every one that nameth the name 
of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.” The contrast of the church in its true 
discipleship to its adversaries, within as well as without, and its security against 
them—its firmness and perpetuity—are thus set forth; and, at the same time, all 
within it are admonished to be in the truest and complete sense disciples.—(e) 
The question whether Paul means by “the vessels unto honor” the same that he 
means by “ the vessels of gold and silver,’—and so, in each case, there is a corres- 
ponding idea presented in two different phrases,—or whether, on the other hand, 
the vessels to honor and dishonor are different from those of gold, etc., and of 
wood, etc., cannot be determined with certainty. AI] that can be said is that the 
individual member of the church, whoever he may be, can become, not only a 
vessel to honor, but both good for the Master’s use and prepared for every good 


work. 
XXVIII. Vv. 22-26. 


(a) The comparison of ver. 22 with 1 Tim. vi. 9-11 makes it altogether probable 
that émvGvuia has its ordinary sense of evil desires or lusts, and does not mean 
either “ cupiditates rerum novarum,” or desires for brilliant gifts, or desires in the 
line of the false yroow. The reference is to those émSuyyiae (1 Tim. vi.) which 
appertain to the moral debasement of the false teachers, and which are contrasted 
with righteousness, etc. These were the same é7v¥., in their larger development, 
as those to which persons might be exposed in youthful life—(b) The word 
paxeota of ver. 24 is determined in its meaning mainly, if not wholly, by wayac 
of ver. 23. The dovdoc xvpiov, who is here the official servant or preacher, is for- 
bidden to contend after the manner of the false teachers. They were prone to 
angry controversy. He must be mild, speaking in a gentle way, patient, apt to 
teach, etc. The dovdo: xvpiov in recent years, as well as in earlier times, seem to 
have been more ready to obey the Apostle’s injunctions in some other lines, than 
in this—(c) The question as to the meaning of aiTov and éxeivov, in ver. 26, is one 
of much difficulty. If, however, éxetvov can be referred to the same person with 
avTov, there can be little doubt that the explanation which regards them as both 
used of the devil, is that which best meets the demands of the sentence. This 
interpretation accords most fully with the perfect tense in the participle &wyp7- 
pévot, with the verb avavinpwow as suggesting the idea of recovery, and with the 
natural connection of aitov with d:a3620v. It avoids the difficulty of making the 
capture by the devil to be designed to the end of accomplishing the Lord’s will that 
deliverance should take place, which is required if avrov is referred to d:a36Aov and 
éxeivov to the Lord. It also avoids the unnaturalness of mingling the idea of recov- 
ery of men (or of awaking them to sobriety) out of a snare with that of being taken 
captive by a person who rescues or awakes them, which is necessary if airov is re- 
ferred to the Lord’s servant. Instances are cited by Kiihner, and referred to by 
Huther and Alf., (Plato Cratyl. p. 480 E. and Lysias e. Eratosth. p. 429), which may, 
to say the least, justify the application of the two pronouns to the same person. 
I', however, such an application can ever be allowed, the present sentence is one in 
which it may easily be believed, that a special emphasis was designed to be 
placed upon the agency of the devil in carrying out his own will. R. V. text 
has having been taken captive by the Lord’s servant unto the will of God. The two 
other possible renderings are placed in the margin. A. R. VY. places in the text 
the explanation favored in this note: having been taken captive by him unto kar wil. 


246 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. yivwoxe] For this, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A F G 238, 
al., Aeth. Boern. Aug., adopted yevaoxete. Tisch., on the authority of C D E K 
L 8, most cursives, versions, ete., retained the Rec., of which reading nearly all 
expositors, even Reiche, have declared themselves to be in favor. Still the plur. 
might be the original reading, since there was no occasion for changing the sing. 
into the plur.—Ver. 2. ¥ omits oi before avfpwro; a mere alteration, because the 
art. seemed to present a difficulty in meaning.—Ver. 3. x omits aoropyo..—Ver. 6. 
aixuaswrifovtes, for aixuaswrevovrec, was adopted even by Griesb. on the 
authority of A C D* E F G yx, many cursives, versions, and Fathers.—Before 
yuvacxapia the Rec. has the art. 74, which, however, was deleted by Griesb., on the 
authority of A C D E F G x, ete.—Ver. 8. The two names are differently written 
by some mss.; for, Iavyijc, C* has “Iwavvy¢; Vulg. Cypr. etc. have Jamnes ; for 
TauBpic, F G, Vulg. It., many Fathers, also the Talmudists, have Maypje. 
Matthaei thinks that this change was made arbitrarily by Origen, who had a 
fashion of altering proper names, partim propter ineptas allegorias, partim prop- 
ter ineptas etymologias suas——Ver. 9. The reading in A, dravora for avoca, must 
be regarded as an arbitrary alteration—Ver. 10. tapyxoAoibyKac] Rec. Tisch. 7; 
for this, A C F G x 17, al., have the aorist tapyxoA0tOyoac, which was adopted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8; F and G have the simple 7xoAovfyoac. The perf. seems to 
be a correction made after the analogy of 1 Tim. iv. 6.—Instead of the difficult 
Ti aywyh, there is found in D* gr. rH ayarn, a manifest correction—Ver. 11. For 
éyévero, Lachm. and_Buttm. read éyévovto, after A 38, al. ; but there is not sufl- 
cient testimony to establish its genuineness.—Ver. 12. Tisch. 7: evoeBa¢ Civ, Ree. 
supported by a large majority of authorities; on the other hand, Tisch. 8: C7 
evoeBac (Lachm. Buttm.), after A P yx, etc.—Ver. 14. tivoc] The reading tiver, 
- which has the testimony of A C F G 17, 71, al., Slav. It. Ambrosiast., and was 
- adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., deserves to be preferred to the usual tivoc, for 
this reason, that the latter may easily be explained to haye arisen from thinking 
here of Paul only. De Wette is undecided, but Reiche is in favor of the Ree— 
Ver. 15. The art. 7a before iep&is placed in brackets by Lachm., and omitted by 
Tisch. 8; it is wanting in C** D* F G y.—Ver. 16. As kai seems to disturb the 
construction, it is omitted in several versions and Fathers; Origen even has 
once: Oedrvevatoc obca, wgéAuud¢ éoTt.—For édeyxov, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 
adopted éAeyy6v, on the authority of A C F G x, 31, 71, 80, al. 


Ver. 1. [On Vy. 1-9, see Note XXIX., page 258.] Consequent on the 
previous exhortations we have a foreshadowing of the evil state of things 
in the future.—roiro d8 yivwoxe |. Even if the plural yvooxere be the correct 
reading, it does not follow that the epistle-was directed to others beside 
Timothy; when an exhortation is general in nature, there is nothing 
strange in an extension of the point of view.—drc év éoydrag juépatc) 


CHAP. 11. 1-5. 247 


[X XIX a.] comp. 1 Tim. iv. 1; Grotius wrongly translates: posthac. It 
denotes a definite period, not, however (asin Actsii. 17; Heb. i. 1), the pre- 
sent, the time between the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His second 
coming to judgment (Heydenreich), nor the time in which the errors 
shall come to an end (Mack), but the time immediately preceding Christ’s 
mapovoia, in which time, according to apostolic prophecy, the might of the 
wicked one shall be fully revealed in order to be completely overcome; 
comp. 2 Pet. i. 3; Jude 18.—évorjoovrar] évicrnu, as an intransitive verb, 
has the sense of “be near at hand,” but in such a way that it passes over 
into the sense of “be present;” thus in Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, 
éveotora and yéAAovra stand in sharp antithesis as “things present” and 
“things future.” Bengel therefore is correct: aderunt. The same is the 
case with the Latin instare; hence there is no ground for finding fault 
with the Vulg. “instabunt” (de Wette), since in the future something 
future was denoted. Luther is not quite exact: “will come.”—«acpoi 
xareroi] de Wette: “critical times;” «apéc is not simply the time, but 
the state of things at the time.—The next verses show in what way these 
xaipoi Will show themselves to be yateroi. 

Vv. 2-5. "Eoovra: yap oi avOpwro.] [XXIX b.] The article oi is not to be 
overlooked. Luther is inaccurate: there will be men; Nouveau Test. 4 
Mons: il y aura des hommes. The article points to the generality, but, 
as Matthies rightly observes, not exactly “all without exception, rather 
taking the average, as a general rule.”—Bengel : majore gradu et numero 
tales, quam unquam, in ecclesia.—Mack is incorrect: “the people of 
whom I am speaking.”—¢iAavro (ax. Aey.). It may be explained from 
Arist. ad Nicom. ix. 8: trove giAabrove év aisxyp@ axokddovor. Heinrichs, on 
the analogy of 1 Cor. x. 24, says: (yrév ra éavtov, uy Ta Tow érépov.—_HuAdpyvpo] 
only elsewhere in Luke xvi. 14; the substantive occurs in 1 Tim. vi. 10.— 
aralovec, brephoavor] Rom. i. 30; the first expresses boastfulness without 
intending contempt for others; the second, pride and haughtiness with 
contempt for others; see Meyer on that passage. Hofmann’s explana- 
tion of aAdfwv is not appropriate: “he who attributes to himself an honor 
which is not his.”—Adodyuor] “slanderous;’’ not quite “ blasphemous ” 
(Matthies). In 1 Tim. 1. 13 a definite reference to divine things is given 
by the context.—yovevow areibeic] Rom. i. 80.—ayapioro:] elsewhere only in 
Luke vi. 85 (Ecclus. xvi. 29; Wisd. xxix. 17).—avéowr] 1 Tim. i. 9. Beza: 
quibus nullum jus est nec fas.—Ver. 3. doropyo:] Rom. i. 81, especially of 
the natural affection between parents and children: caritate a natura ipsa 
nobis insita orbati, Heinrichs.—éorovd] Rom. i. 81; both those who 
make no covenant (Luther: “irreconcilable”) and those who do not 
keep a covenant made, “ covenant-breaking.” Hofmann says: “ one who 
is destitute of moral sense of justice ; ” but that does not give the reference 
peculiar to the word.—0év4fo/0c] 1 Tim. iii. 11.—dxparei¢ (az. Aey.), “having 
no control over one’s passions; ” 1 Cor. vii. 5: axpacia; the opposite is 
éyxpathc, Tit. i. 8.—avijuepor] (ar. Aey.). Oecumenius makes it equivalent 
tO auoi, axavipwro; Synonymous with avedrefjuovec, Rom. i. 31.—agiAdyabos 
(az. Aey.); the opposite: @Adyabo., Tit. i. 8. Theophylact: éx@pot mavrd¢ 


248 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


ayaboo. Luther wrongly: “unkindly.”—Ver. 4. xpodérac] Luke vi. 16; 
Acts vii. 52; here: “men among whom there is no fidelity ’ (Wiesinger). 
—rporereic¢] (Acts xix. 36), qui praecipites sunt in agendo (Bengel), “ fool- 
hardy.” Hofmann’s is too weak: “ inconsiderate.”’—rervgwpévor] 1 Tim. 
ili. 6, vi. 4, “‘ puffed up,” not merely “made stupid ” (Hofmann).—#Aqdovoe 
paaArov h gAdbeor (both words az. dey. Philo, de Agricult.: giAgdovov kat 
gidoraby wadrrov % giAdpeTov Kai @iAdHeov épyatecar); such paronomasia are 
often found in the N. T.; see Wilke’s Hermeneutik, vol. II. p. 846: “rather 
hunting after pleasure than seeking after God.” '—Ver. 5. éyovre¢ pépdwow 
evoeBeiac | pdopdworc, Rom. ii. 20, in a different meaning from here; see 
Meyer on that passage. We must not, like Beza, understand it to be 
vera forma et effigies pietatis, sicut in lege proponitur; it rather denotes 
the external form in general. But as Paul contrasts it here with divaywe, it 
acquires the signification of mere appearance in distinction from true 
nature.—ryv dé divauw avtie jpvnuévor] Sbvayuc in contrast with pépdworc : 
“the living, powerful nature of genuine blessedness”’ (Heydenreich).— 
povnwévot] 1 Tim. v. 8; Tit. i. 16, 11.12: “they show that they do not pos- 
sess the dévayic, and do not wish to possess it.”—This ends the enumera- 
tion of the characteristics which Paul uses to describe. the men in the 
last times.—Rom. i. 30, 31 is similar to this passage; Wiesinger (fol- 
lowing Olshausen) aptly remarks: “it is a new heathendom under a 
Christian name which the apostle is here describing.”—A definite con- 
nection between the ideas cannot be established,’ but in both passages 
kindred ideas are placed together. Thus the two first are compounded 
with ¢io¢ ; then follow three expressions denoting arrogance; to yovetou 
arabeic there is added aydpicro; this word begins a longer series of words 
beginning with @ privative, and the series is interrupted by d:dfod0v; the 
next expressions: mpoddrat, mporeretc, SeeM to form a paronomasia; to 
mporereic there is added the kindred notion rervgwpuévor ; Some more general 
notions close the list. But this very confusion brings out more vividly 
the varied manifestations of the evil one. - It is to be observed, however, 
. that the list begins with ¢/Aavro, that accordingly only such qualities are 
enumerated as have their root in gAavria, and that hypocrisy is the last 
mentioned, as the means by which the selfish man seeks to conceal his 
selfishness by a show of piety —Heydenreich wrongly tries to establish in 
the particular expressions a special reference to the peculiar nature of the 
heretics—As the closing word; Paul adds the exhortation: kai rovrovc 
arorpérov] axorpérov, ax. rey. (1 Tim. vi. 20: éxrpérecfar), is kindred in 
meaning with zaparod, ii. 23: “from these things turn away, these things 
sarepyilecbies HTTovs «TOV 


1Theod. v. Mopsu.: pidavtoi eiow ot Tavta, MaxnV, akpatets 


mpos Thy EauT@v wpédAELcav TOLOUYTES, adagoves 
Kavxwpmevor Exev 6 mH EXOvOLY, UTEpHpavol E- 
yada povoovtes emt Tois ovat, BAaodymor 
KaTnyoplats XalpovTes, avogvor emipedccav TOU 
Sixaiov my moLovpevor, aaTopyor mepi ovdéva 
cxéow éxovtes, dorovdor ov BéBaror wept Tas 
didias, oVde GANBEts wept & TuVTLBEVTaL, SuaBodAor 
tavTa Te éxel, éxetva évTadOa A€yovTes emi TH 


_ radar, avyjmepor ovdSemLas XpHOTOTHTOS ETLMEAOV- 


peEvOL, TeTUPWLEVOL EyaAa HpovovdvVTEs Em TOLS 
LN Tpogover. 

2 Hofmann does indeed seek to establish an 
order in accordance with definite points of 
view, but he does not accomplish this without 
much ingenuity and many inaccurate inter 
pretations. 


CHAP. III. 6. 249 


avoid.”—This exhortation shows that Paul in single phenomena of the 
day already recognized the approach of the kacpoi yaderot which were to 
come fully in the future. 

Ver. 6. In this verse the apostle passes on to definite facts in the pres- 
ent. We cannot but see that he is thinking of the heretics on whose 
aoéBeva he lays stress also in other passages; comp. ver. 8 (il. 16). Hof- 
mann says that “ Paul was thinking of people who wished to be consid- 
ered, and pretended to be, on good terms with Timothy ;” but there is no 
hint of this in the context. By similarity of disposition they belong 
already to the number of the godless men of the future ; hence Paul says: 
éx tobTwv yap elow] yap gives the reason of the previous exhortation, as the 
apostle means to declare that men such as he has described already 
exist.—ol évdivovrec el¢ Tac oixiac] évdiverv here, “ enter, press into,” with a sug- 
gestion of secrecy; Luther: “who slip into houses here and there;” 
Bengel: irrepentes clanculum ; in this sense the word is azaf dey... The 
form of expression oi évdivovrec shows that this évdivew is a characteristic 
of those of whom the apostle is speaking —The purpose of this secret 
entering is given in the next words: kai aiyuadwrilovtes yuvaixdpia «.7.A.] 
[XXIX ¢.] aixparwrifew, a verb belonging to later Greek: “make a pris- 
oner of war; ” it denotes here, getting complete possession of; the word 
is thoroughly apposite for describing the conduct of the founders of hereti- 
cal sects.2—yvvaixapia] az. Aey., the diminutive with a suggestion of con- 
tempt; “the contemptuous epithet indicates their weakness and prone- 
ness to temptation” (van Oosterzee)—The nature of these yuvackapia is 
described in the following three participial clauses: ceowpevuéva duapriacc] 
cwpevew (Rom. xii. 20), “ gather, heap up,” corresponds to the Latin cumu- 
lare: “cumulatae peccatis.”—dyéueva éexvIvpiare rorxidace (Rom. vill. 14; 
Gal. v. 18, ayeoSa rveipar:). Luther is inaccurate: “who go on with 
manifold lusts.” Their internal motive and spring of action are their 
manifold lusts.2—Comp. Tit. iii.38.—Ver. 7. rdvrore pavddvovta] Bengel adds 
the adverb: curiose. The incentive of their pavddvew was not the search 
after truth, but mere desire for entertainment, a longing for intellectual 
pastime (comp. the description of the Athenians, Acts xvii. 21); this long- 
ing makes them the prey of teachers who promise new wisdom. Hence 
it goes ON: Kal pydérore eic Exiyvocw aAjiSeiag EAEiv Suvdueva] yundérore 18 az. 
hey.; dvvdueva is emphatic; they cannot attain to the truth, because the 
necessary conditions do not exist in their inner life.—Mosheim thinks 
that the three participial clauses describe the three different classes of the 
yuvaixdpia: (1) sinners, (2) seekers after happiness, (8) devotees; they 
rather denote various traits in the same persons, and “the very union of 


1Chrysost: eldes, ro avaicxuvtov THs ebyAwoe 
Sia Tov eimetvy; evdvvovtes’ TO aTimov, THY 
amTaTyVv, THY KoAakelav. 

2The word occurs in Ignatius (Ep. ad Phila- 
delph. chap. ii.) in the same sense as here: 
modAot AVKoL aktomLaToL HOovy Kaky alxprAwTl- 


Govat Tovs Peodpopous. 


8Chrysostom: ti éote morkidats; evTavda 
TOAAG HvigaTo, THY TPUdHY, THY agXnKLoTUYHY, 
Thy Aayvetav. 

4C@hrysostom: érerd) éavtas Katexwoay Tais 
ALapTHMacLr, 


émOvytars exetvars Kal ToS 


émpwby avtav 7H Stavora, 


250 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY..- 


such traits is characteristic ” (de Wette).—It is no matter of surprise that 
the heretics, to win more followers, turned their attentions to the fair 
sex ; that has been done by heretics in all ages. It is a charge brought 
specially against the Gnostics by various writers.!. This, however, cannot 
be taken as a proof of the later composition of the epistle, all the less that 
many expressions in the descriptions of the Fathers show that they had 
this description in their thoughts. 

Ver. 8. Further description of the heretics: 6v rpérov dé "lavvqc «ai 
IauBpi¢ avtéotyoav Mwioei] Paul here compares the heretics to the Egyp- 
tian Magi who are mentioned in Ex. vil. but not named. Origen (Tract. 
35 in Matt.) thinks that the apostle extracted them from a liber secretus 
which bore the title ““Jamnes et Mambres.” That is, however, doubtful ; 
Theodoret’s supposition is more probable: ra pévroe robTwv dvéuata ovK éx 
Tie Oeiag ypagyc pweuddynxev 6 Yeiog ardatoAoc, aAW EK THO aypdgov Tov "Tovdaiwy 
diackariac. The names were a part of Jewish tradition from which they 
passed into the Talmudic and other Jewish writings; see Targum Jona- 
than, Ex. vii. 11, xxii. 22. Even the Pythagorean Numenius in the second 
century mentioned them, as Origen (Contra Celsum, iv.) and Eusebius 
(Praep. Evangel. ix. chap. 8) inform us. ‘“ According to Jewish tradition, 
they are said to have been the sons of Balaam, and at first the teachers of 
Moses, but afterwards his chief opponents, and to have perished at last with 
the Egyptian army in the Red Sea;” see Heydenreich and Wetstein on this 
passage.—The correlation of 6v rpézov . ovrw does not necessarily 
place emphasis on the similarity of the manner of the act, but often only 
on the similarity of the act itself (comp. Matt. xxiii. 87; Acts vii. 28). 
Possibly, therefore, the heretics are compared with these sorcerers only 
because they both withstood the truth (so Plitt)—Possibly, also, it is 
because the resemblance lay in the heretics preaching the same thing as 
Timothy, just as the sorcerers did the same thing as Moses, the heretics 
and the sorcerers having the same purpose of striving against the truth 
(so Hofmann). Still the mention of the sorcerers at all is strange ; hence 

“we may suppose that the heretics by some more characteristic trait sug- 
gested the resemblance to the apostle’s mind, and that this trait was their 
use of magic arts, to which there is allusion made also in yéyrec, ver. 18 
(de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee”). The dé not only marks the transi- 
tion to a new thought, but also introduces something in contrast to what 


1Trenaeus, i. 13. 3, says of Marcus the Val- Apelles Philemonem comitem habuit; Mon- 


entinian Gnostic: padcora mepi yuvaikas aoxo- 
Aetrac; and Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi.,expressly 
upbraids the Gnostics with éuzatgew rots 
yuvatkaptors and with amwatay To avrots meLb6- 
pevov yuvatketov yevos; see Baur, p. 36. The 
passage, quoted by Mack from Jerome (Ep. 
ad Ctesiphontem), is very descriptive: Simon 
Magus haeresin condidit adjutus auxilio He- 
lenae meretricis; Nicolaus Antiochenus 
omnium immunditiarum conditor choros 
duxit foemineos; Marcion quoque Romam 
praemisit mulierem ad majorem lasciviam ; 


tanus Priscam et Maximillam primum auro 
corrupit, deinde haeresi polluit; Arius ut 
orbem decipéret, sororem principis ante 
decepit. Donatus Lucillae opibus adjutus 
est; Elpidium caecum Agape caeca duxit; 
Prisciliano juncta fuit Galla. 

2Van Oosterzee here makes an apposite 
allusion to Simon Magus, to Elymas, to the 
itinerating devil-exorcisers among the Jews, 
and to the magic arts practised from time 
immemorial at Ephesus, comp. Acts xix. 19. 


CHAP. 1. 8-11. 251 


preceded : what they did they did with an appearance of piety, but in 
truth they were opposing the truth.—«areg6apyévoe tov vowv] The verb 
katagbeipw (az. Aey.; in 2 Pet. ii 12 it is the reading of the Rec., but there 
is more testimony for the simple verb) is synonymous with diagveipo, 1 
Tim. vi. 5.—addxeuoe repi tiv riot] Luther’s translation: “ incapable of 
believing,” is inaccurate; nor is Beza’s explanation suitable : rejectanel, 
ie. falsae et adulterinae doctrinae doctores, quos oporteat ab omnibus 
rejici. ’Adéd«euoc is one who does not stand proof, and in connection with 
rept tiv rior One who does not stand proof in regard to faith: “not stand- 
ing proof in respect of faith” (Matthies, de Wette); comp. L “Diana-is £9: 
The description here given of the heretics is the same as in 1 Tim Vi.o% 
SiepSapuévor TOV vovv Kal areotepnpévor THC adn teiac. 

Ver. 9. A ground of comfort.—a22’ ob rpoKdyovow éxt mAeiov] This ap- 
pears to stand in contradiction with ver. 13 and ii. 16, 17. Bengel 
remarks: non proficient amplius: non ita, ut alios seducant ; quamquam 
ipsi et eorum similes proficient in pejus ver. 19. Saepe malitia, qaum 
late non potest, profundius proficit. This, however, is not a satisfactory 
explanation, since vou ée, ii. 17, and rAavovrec, ver. 18, point to the 
increasing extent of the heresy. Chrysostom, however, says rightly : «av 
mpbrepov avdjon Ta THC TAdvyC, Eig TéAog ov diapéver. The contradiction exists 
only when the apostle’s words are wrongly pressed so as to contain a 
denial of every further extension of the heresy. For the present their 
influence is extending ; but later it will come to an end; this does not 
contradict the apostle’s prophecy in vv. 1-5, since Paul does not say that 
the demoralization of men will be brought about by the heretics of whom 
he is thinking hege.. Hofmann sees no apparent contradiction, as he 
supposes that Paul in the passages mentioned is not speaking of the same 
people; but in this he is wrong, since both the context and the expression 
show that those mentioned in ver. 13 are the same as those in vv. 6-9.— 
The apostle confirms the thought expressed by adding the words: 4 yap 
dvora avtav éxdndoc gotae tacw] The avora (= “ want of judgment, sense- 
lessness ”) of the heretics does not refer so much to their doctrines opposed 
to the truth, as to their conduct described in ver. 6.—éxdyAo¢ (am. rey.) ..- 
dc Kat # éxelver éyévero] “as they were put to shame before Moses,” Ex. viii. 
18 f., ix. 11 (de Wette). 

Vy. 10, 11. [On Vv. 10-17, see Note XXX., pages 258, 259.] As a contrast 
+o the heresy, the apostle now describes Timothy’s former conduct, for the 
purpose of inciting him to show a like fidelity still. [XXX a.J]—oid dé 
rapykozov8ncac| The verb denotes neither that he was an actual witness 
(Chrysostom: robtwv ob paptug; so, too, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Eras- 
mus, and others;—this exposition is unsuitable, since these events, ver. 
11, in the apostle’s life had taken place before Timothy’s conversion), nor 
even that the knowledge was gained through others (Luther: “thou hast 
come to know”). TapaxoAovdeiv means “ follow,” either theoretically, as 
in Luke i. 8 (“of intellectual following after, by which the knowledge of a 
thing is gained,” Meyer on the passage), or practically, as in 1 Tim. iv. 6. 
Here it can only have the latter meaning. Here, however, as in 1 Tim. 


252 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


iv. 6, it is not equivalent to imitari, follow as a pattern (de Wette), for that 
does not agree with dwyyoi¢ (ver. 11), but the apostle’s didackaria, aywy? 
k.7.A. are regarded as guides by which Timothy is to steer his course 
through life (so also van Oosterzee, Hofmann, Otto'). Wiesinger explains 
it: “thou hast let thyself be moved by my didackadia «.7.2. to join thyself 
to me.” But this explanation unjustifiably limits the zapaxodovteiv to 
“the act by which Timothy first joined himself to the apostle ;” further, 
this notion of joining himself is imported; and finally, it would seem 
superfluous to enumerate the particular points if they are only to be 
understood as motives for Timothy’s joining himself to the apostle-—The 
aorist says that Timothy followed the apostle before; there is no indica- 
tion whether he did so later. This earlier period was, of course, the time 
when he was the apostle’s ovvepyéc. The perfect would have meant that — 
Timothy continued to do so.—youv rH didackatia] [XXX b.] comp. 1 Tim. 
iv. 6.—rq ayoyi] With this and the following words ov is to be supplied. 
Mack wrongly says that ov is not to be supplied, and that dywyf and the 
terms following do not refer to Paul, but to Timothy: “thou hast followed 
my doctrine in behavior,” etc. Apart from the unnatural construction, 
this view is decidedly opposed by ver. 11, for it is quite untenable to sup- 
pose that Timothy in the places named suffered persecution just as Paul 
did.—aywyy (az. dey.) in classic Greek is both transitive, “the guidance,” 
and intransitive, “ mode of life,” ratio vivendi. The latter meaning (see 
Esth. ii. 20) should here be retained; the word cannot of itself mean 
puidance of the church, as some interpret it. Luther says well: “my 
manner.” —rq mpodéce:] cf. Acts xi. 28, “the purpose on which the mode 
of life is founded.”—r4 riorer] not “ fidelity in office,” nor “ conscientious- 
ness,” but “faith.”—r7 paxpodvuia «.7.4.] The difference between saxpo- 
Syua and brouovg is, that the former is applied to one who is not irritated, 
the latter to one who is not discouraged.—Ver. 11. roi¢ dwwyyoic, roig Tadjyu- 
aow] The transition to these is formed by irouovg. The idea of dwypoi¢ is 
expanded by adding ta3juacwv. The apostle is thinking specially of his 
persecutions, and his reason is that Timothy shrank to a certain extent 
from suffering ; comp. i. 6-8.—oid jor éyévovro (éyévero)] ola is distinguished 
from the relative a4, inasmuch as it points to the nature of the radjuara; 
a Would have limited ra¥juacw to what the apostle had to endure in 
Antioch, ete.; but ota indicates that he means by. ra¥juaow all sufferings 
of the same nature as those endured in Antioch, ete. This is the case also 
with oiove farther on. The sufferings endured in Antioch, etc., are men- 
‘tioned because they took place at the time when Timothy was adopted 
by Paul as his colleague—In the next words: oiove diwypyove impveyxa, the 





LOtto: “mapaxoAovGery is to be taken in its nium, and Lystra. Hence, however, he is 


most literal sense, not comprobari, amplecti, 
or even imitari, but follow after. Timothy of 
his own accord not only followed after his 


doctrine, but also his sufferings; for that 


these lay in the path of an apostle was shown 
clearly enough by events in Antioch, Ico- 


not to be surprised if he finds on his way the 
very thing he had willingly followed after.”"— 
Hofmann explains it: “ Timothy as scholar 
followed that in which Paul had preceded 
him as teacher, so that Christianity taught 
him what Christianity was.” 


CHAP. im. 12, 13; 253 


verb is emphatic; it was important, when directing Timothy to the ex- 
ample given him, to remind him that the persecutions had been borne 
undauntedly—and then that the Lord had granted rescue from them all; 
hence he continues: kai é« ravtov pe épioato 6 xipwc. Erasmus, Flatt, 
Mack, Heydenreich unnecessarily take the sentence: oiovce . . 
as a touching appeal; Hofmann, both this sentence and the preceding 
one: oid wo éyévero x.t.A, This would only be an unsuitable interruption 
of the quiet train of thought.'—izodépe denotes persevering, stedfast 
endurance, 1 Cor. x. 13; 1 Pet. 11. 17.—kai é« mévtov pe «.7.4.2] | He men- 
tions his sufferings, and his rescue from them, that he may encourage 
Timothy to be ready to suffer for Christ’s sake. It is to be observed that 
ye épvoaro refers not only to rescue from bodily danger, but also to rescue 
from the danger of being unfaithful to his calling, so that out of his suffer- 
ings he had issued without hurt to body or soul ; comp. iv. 17. 

Ver. 12. The principle here laid down is intended, like the mention of 
Timothy’s conduct in ver. 11, to incite Timothy to willing endurance of 
suffering.—xal ravrec dé] wai . . . dé, see 1 Tim. ili. 10.—oi éAovrec] is here 
emphatic: “they whose thoughts are thus directed.”—¢jv evoeBac] the 
adverb evoeBac only here and in Tit. 11. 12.—év Xpior@ "Ijoot] denotes the 
pious life as Christian in its nature; but it is to be observed that, accord- 
ing to the apostolic view, true eioéBeva is possible only in communion with 
Christ. Hofmann unsuitably remarks that the emphasis should not be 
on év Xp. ‘Ino., but on eiceBdc, for Cyv evceBdc év Xp. ’Ino. forms only one 
idea: that of the Christian life of piety.—d.wy6joovra] expresses the cer- 
tainty: Christian piety cannot continue without persecution, because the 
world is hostile to the kingdom of God; comp. John xv. 19, 20; Matt. x. 
22, 38, and other passages. Wiesinger rightly remarks: ‘“ Not to comfort 
himself does the apostle say this, but to show that his experience was a 
universal one, as something necessarily bound up with evoeBac Cp,” and, it 
should be added, to give encouragement to Timothy. 

Ver. 13. Matthies (with whom Wiesinger agrees) thus states the con- 
nection between this and the preceding verses: “ Quite different is it with 
evil men, who, instead of suffering for the truth, proceed always farther 
in their wickedness ;”’ but there is no real opposition in the two thoughts 
thus opposed. The apostle here continues the description of the heretics 
which was interrupted at ver. 10; in contrast with oi #éAovrec evaeBadc Cyv, he 


. UmgveyKa, 


troduction was necessary, if the apostle 
wished to express his thought in a relative 
clause. 

2Chrysostom: apudotepa mapakAyjoews, OTL 
kal éy® mpobvuiay maperxounv yevvatay, Kal OvK 


1Hofmann maintains that if the sentences 
beginning with ofa and otovs were to be rela- 
tive sentences, the apostle would have writ- 
ten: Tots Suwyots, olovs UmAveyKa, Tots 7ab7- 
Mmacwv, oid wor éyéveto; but this would make 
too wide a separation between the cognate 
ideas Stwypois and raOjuacrv, and the second 


eyKaTeAcipOnpy. 


3Bengel: extra Jesum Christum nulla 


sentence: ola «.7.A,, would be only a weak 
appendage.—The objection, that the relative 
sentence with Siwyuots is quite superfluous, 
is quite removed if the emphasis be placed 
on umyveyxa. Nor can it be said that “ dimy- 
wovs is unskilfully introduced,” since this in- 


pietas. 

4 Wiesinger argues, on the other hand, that 
“suffering for the sake of holiness, and 
advance in wickedness with outward success,” 
do form a contrast; but the idea “with out 
ward success” is entirely imported. 


254 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


calls them zovypot dvOpwro. Kai yonrec, and says of them, rpoxérrew éxt rd 
xeipov, which is all the more suitable that it was the very reason why per- 
secution was threatening the honest disciples of Christ, and with them 
Timothy.—zorypoi dé dvbpwro] As the article is wanting, the thought is 
quite general, but «ai yéyrec clearly shows that the heretics mentioned 
above are specially meant (in opposition to Hofmann). Paul gives this 
name to the heretics, with reference to ver. 8, where he compared them 
to the Egyptian sorcerers. The word yéye¢ is az. Aey. (yonteia, 2 Mace. xii. 
24); it is equivalent to uayoc, Acts xiii. 6, 8 (comp., too, Acts viii. 9, 11). 
Hofmann generalizes the idea to that of a traitor; but this is all the more 
arbitrary, that the expression is undoubtedly an allusion to ver. 8.—zpoxé- 
Wovow éxi 7d yeipov] denotes a greater degree of wickedness, while ver. 9 
refers to the increase in the extent of its influence.—How this increase of 
wickedness comes to pass, is told by the words raavévrec kai rAavdpevor, 
Bengel and Heydenreich make riavévrec and yéyrec, tAavéuevor and rovnpot 
parallel to each other; for this, however, there is no ground. Even the 
meaning of rAaveuevor is against the parallel, for it is neither transitive: 
“leading astray” (Matthies), nor middle: qui se seducendos permittunt 
(Bengel), nor even intransitive: “going astray’ (Hofmann); it is purely 
passive : “being led astray” (Luther), or otherwise it would have been 
put first. He who leads others astray is himself led astray. 

Ver. 14. To the good testimony given to Timothy by Paul in ver. 10, 
there is added the exhortation to stand stedfast in the truth.—si dé] said 
in opposition to the heretics.—péve év ol¢ Euafec] uéve, see 1 Tim. ii. 15; 
John viii. 81.—év oic is equivalent to év robroi, d.—Eyabec] comp. ii. 2.— 
kai] (sc. 4; not évolc, as Heydenreich suggests) éroréfyc] not= quae tibi 
concredita sunt (Beza, Luther: “and is entrusted to thee”); for rioré 
does not mean “entrust to,” but confirmare. It is rightly interpreted by 
the Greek expositors, with whom also de Wette and Wiesinger agree ; 
Theophylact: pera r2npodopiag Euabec; properly, “of which thou hast been 
assured,” i. e. of which thou hast been convinced for certain ;! it serves 
to give “ more force to éuafec” (Wiesinger), by declaring that Timothy was 
also convinced of the truth of what he learnt (so, too, van Oosterzee, 
Plitt, Hofmann).—To strengthen the exhortation, Paul reminds Timothy 
of those from whom he learnt the truths of the gospel: eid mapa tivwr 
éuabec] eidéc, see ii. 23.—rapa tivov] [XXX c.] With the usual reading rapa 


tivoc, Which Hofmann prefers, tivoc is not, as some think, Christ, but the | 


apostle as teacher; but still it would be strange for Paul not to name him- 
self directly and without periphrasis, as he usually does when speaking 
of himself; comp. ii. 2. If rivwv be the correct reading, then these teach- 
ers cannot be the root waprypec mentioned in ii. 2 (Matthies), nor Paul 
and Barnabas (according to Acts xvi. 1 comp. with xiv. 6 ff., Grotius) ; but 
only, as is shown by azé Bpédove following, the grandmother and mother of 


1JIn elassie Greek moréw occurs specially = “after they had made him swear.” Comp. 
in connection with opxw; thus Thucydides, also Hom. Od. i. 21. 218: also 2 Mace. vii. 24, 
iv. 88: Kal muotdéoavtes avTov Tols SpKots, 1. €. Xii. 25. 


“after they had made sure of him by oath” 


CHAP. I. 14, 15. 255 
Timothy, whose faith the apostle expressly mentions, i. 5 (so, too, van Oos- 
terzee and Plitt)—Timothy had already been instructed in the truth of 
the gospel before Paul met with him, nay, even before this instruction he 
had been carefully made acquainted with the holy Scriptures. This very 
fact, that from childhood he had been under the influence of divine truth 
and been nourished by the bread of life, was to be an incentive to him to 
adhere faithfully to this word of truth. 
Ver. 15. Kai 67] Most expositors, including Wiesinger, Plitt, and Hof- 
mann! assume that eidd¢ and 67 . . . oidac are co-ordinate sentences giv- 
ing the reason why. In a eco of this irregular construction, Bengel 
directs us to John ii. 24, 25; Acts xxl. 29; but wrongly.2—Beza, on the 
other hand, gives the right construction by making xa? 67. dependent on 
eidac: sciens a quo didiceris, teque a puero sacras literas novisse. This, 
too, de Wette (van Oosterzee agreeing with him) adopts, correctly remark- 
ing that cidéc usually denotes not only knowledge, but also reflection.— 
ard Bpégove Ta iepa ypduparta oidac] axd Bpépovc, Mark ix. 21: raididébev.8 "Ard 
Bpégove stands first because it is emphatic; it points back to rapa rivev 
éuabec. In order that he may continue in what he has learned, Timothy 
is to remember his teacher, and also that he has known the holy Scrip- 
tures from childhood.—ra iepa ypaupata] This name for the O. T. only 
occurs here; in John vii. 15 without ispd; the more usual name is ai 
ypagai, with and without dyia. De Wette’s conjecture is quite arbitrary, 
that the author of the epistle was also thinking here of some writings of 
the N. T.—ra duvapevd oe cogioa ig owrnpiav] ta duvdueva is present and not 
preterite (“quae poterant,” Bengel); it tells us of a permanent character- 
istic of the O. T. (de Wette, Wiesinger). Zogifev is equivalent to sapien- 
tem reddere; to explain the word as synonymous with é:daoxew is inaccu- 
rate. When joined with ¢¢ ocwrnpiay it is usually taken in the sense: 
“teach the way to holiness;” but, as Paul adds dia ziorewe «.7.2., which 
cannot be joined immediately with cwrypiav (= ry dia cwrnp.), but belongs 
to codica, that interpretation is here unsuitable; he who has faith is 
already on the way to cwrnpia, or rather is in possession of the cwrypia. 
We must therefore adhere to the full signification of cw@ifew; so that he 
is speaking here not of the first instruction in salvation, but of the ever 
deepening knowledge of it, how that furthers the owrypia (so, too, Wiesin- 
ger, van Oosterzee, Plitt).—d:a rictewe tHe év Xp. ’Iyoov] comp. 1 Tim. iii. 18. 
Wiesinger rightly remarks that these words are not to be taken as giving 
the means immanent in the Scriptures, but “ contain the necessary condi- 
tion attached to the use of the O. T.” (de Wette). Hofmann asserts that 


1Schriftbew. I. pp. 675 f., and so also in his 
commentary. — 

2 Hofmann, in regarding the appeal to Acts 
Xxii. 29 as appropriate, overlooks the differ- 
ence of construction in the two passages. In 
Acts xxii. 49, two sentences beginning with 
ore are dependent on éemcyvovs, whereas here 
the first independent sentence would be ex- 
pressed by a participle (eiéws instead of ore 


oléas), to which a sentence beginning with 
ére is made co-ordinate. This irregularity of 
construction is manifestly not removed by 
Hofmann’s remark, that the first sentence 
gives an additional fact, the second furnishes 
a reason. 

3 Chrysostom: 
Antip. Th. 32: 


€k mpwoTns yAtkias; Comp, 


ex Bpedeos. 


256 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


go. ei¢ owrnpiav Only denotes an instruction, “ giving complete acquaintance 
with salvation ;” for “in order that Timothy might remain in what he had 
learnt, it was only necessary for the Scripture to teach what he knew.” 
But what any one already knows does not require still to be taught to 
him; and instruction leading on to knowledge ever more complete, does 
not hinder him from abiding in what he has already learnt. Accord- 
ing to Hofmann, dia rictewe is to be joined with cwrzpiav, because—as 
he strangely enough asserts—‘‘instruction by means of faith is a 
chimera ” (!). 

Ver. 16. Reason given for the last thought.—raca ypady Gedrvevaroc 
kal wgéduog Tpoc K.7.A.] [XXX d.] raca ypagh, not: “the whole of Scrip- 
ture ” (Beza: tota scriptura, i.e. Canon Hebraeorum), but “ every Scrip- 
ture;” or, still better, “all Scripture.” —fedrvevoroc] az. rey.; the explana- 
tion of this word, which also in classic Greek is applied to seers and poets, 
is specially aided by the passage in 2 Pet. 1. 21: id rvebyartoe dyiov depdmevor 
éAddqoav oi aytot Bod avOpwror.—In various old versions (Syr. Vulg.; so also 
in Clement, Origen, Tertullian, etc.) «ai is wanting; and Luther did not 
express it in his translation; in that case eérv. is clearly an attribute 
‘belonging to the subject; Luther: “all Scripture inspired by God is.” 
With the correct reading, however, #eérv. may be a predicate ; so Bengel: 
est haec pars non subjecti (quam enim scripturam dicat Paulus, per se 
patet), sed praedicati; so, too, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Ooster- 
zee, and others. Other expositors, again, such as Grotius, Rosenmiiller, 
Heinrichs, Plitt, Hofmann, take @edzvevoroc as an attribute of the subject, 
even with this reading, and explain «ai as “also.” This construction is 
the right one. On the one hand, it is ungrammatical to explain raoa 
ypaoy by “the whole of Scripture.” Wiesinger argues against this by 
appealing to Eph. ii. 21 and to Heb. iii. 3; see Meyer on the one passage 
and Delitzsch on the other, where, too, Liinemann translates: “every 
house.” + Wiesinger argues also that ypad# is regarded as a proper name, 
which he tries to prove by 2 Pet. i. 20 and John vii. 15; but, though a sub- 
Stantive is used once without an article, it does not follow that it has the 
‘signification of a proper name (on John vii. 15, comp. Meyer). On the 
other hand, this sentence does not properly give a reason for the preced- 
ing thought (Wiesinger), but rather confirms it, and hence there was no 
reason for directing attention to the fact that the whole of Scripture is 
Gedxvevoroc. There was no doubt.on that point (viz. that the whole of Scrip- - 
ture and not a part of it was inspired by God), but on the point whether 
the Scriptures as Geérvevoror are also (Kai serves to confirm) o¢éAcuor. There 
is no ground for. asserting that, with this view, there could not have been 
an ellipse of éorw (Wiesinger).—rxpic didackadiav x.7.2.] Heydenreich thinks 
that the apostle is not speaking here of the profitableness of Scripture in 
general and for all Christians, but of its utility to teachers of religion. So 
also Hofmann: “ The sentence does not say of what service Holy Scrip- 


‘Not less inappropriate is van Oosterzee’s passage, and Winer, pp. 105 f. [E. T. p. 111] 
appeal to Eph. iii. 15 (comp. Meyer on the and to 1 Pet. i. 15. 


GHAP:: Tit; A 7, 257 


ture is to him who reads it, but what use can be made of it by him who 
teaches.” This view, however, is wrong; neither in ver. 14 nor ver. 15is 
there anything said regarding Timothy’s work in teaching ; the apostle does 
not pass on to this point till the next chapter, ver. 17 notwithstanding. — 
mpoc didaox.; Holy Scripture is profitable for teaching by advancing us in 
knowledge ; zpoc¢ éAeyxov (or éAeyudv), by convincing us of sin and rebuking 
us on account of sin.' Chrysostom understands it only of the conviction 
of error; so, too, Bengel: convincit etiam in errore et praejudicio versan- 
tes; Heydenreich, too, refers it, like didackadia, only to what is theoretical. 
’EAéyyvew certainly does occur in this sense, Tit. i. 9, 13, but it is more fre- 
quently used of what is practical, 1 Tim. v. 20; Tit. ii. 15.—rpic éxavépbwow] 
by working amendment in us.’—ézavop@. (az. dey.) is synonymous with 
vovdecia, 1 Cor. x. 1l.—rpog raideiav tiv év duxacoobvy| by advancing us in the 
further development of the Christian life. Luther is not wrong in trans- 
lating radeia by “ correction,” inasmuch as in N. T. usage it is applied to 
the education which not only develops the existing good, but also counter- 
acts existing evil. dicacoctvy : “ the Christian life of piety.”—Theodoret : 
éxrraidever yuac Ta edn THC apeTtjc.—There is an obvious climax in the series of 
these thoughts. 

Ver. 17. “Iva declares the purpose which Scripture is to serve.—apruoc 7 6 
tov Ocod GvOpwroc] aprioe (literally, “ adapted”) is a dz. Aey., equivalent to 
rédewoc, Col. i. 28, ‘ perfect;” according to Hofmann: “in suitable condi- 
tion,’ which, however, agrees with the notion of perfection.—é roi Oot 
avtporoc] [XXX e.] is mostly understood by expositors to denote those 
entrusted with the office of evangelist, and is referred specially to Timo- 
thy. The latter point is clearly wrong, since ver. 16 is general in sense ; 
the apostle speaks here not of Timothy only, but of every one who is an 
av$p. 7. Ocov. Even although Timothy is so named in 1 Tim. vi. 11 with 
reference to his office, it does not follow that here, where the thought 
is quite general, it is a name for the office; every believing Christian by 
his relation to God (van Oosterzee: “he who by the Holy Spirit is born of 
God and is related to God’’) may receive the same name.—rpoc rav épyov 
ayabov éEnptiouévoc] a more precise definition of aptvoc.—rav épy. ay. is also, 
for the most part, understood to have an official reference. Bengel : gen- 
era talium operum enumerantur ver. 16; nam homo Dei debet docere, 
convincere, corrigere, instituere iv. 2. But this is wrong; it is rather to be 
taken quite generally (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee ; de Wette differs). Ver. 
16 does not tell for what purpose Scripture may be used with others, but 
what is its influence on one who occupies himself with it; and though iv. | 
2 does deal with Timothy’s official work, that does not prove that wav épy. 
ay. is only to be limited to this special thought.—éypriouévoc] equipped, 
Luther: “skilled.”—The same word occurs in Acts xxi. 5, but in another 
connection (see Meyer on the passage); corresponding to it we find xaryp- 
tiouévoc in Luke vi. 40 and other passages. 


1Theodoret: éAéyxer yap ynuay TOY Tapa- 2Theodoret: mapaxadet kai tTovs mapatpe 
Pouov Biov. mévtas emraveAOerv cis THY EVOEiay Oddr. 


17 


258 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXIX. Vv. 1-9. 


(a) The use of the word éoyaracc, as distinguished from torépoe (1 Tim. iv. 1), 
shows that the reference here is to what are especially called “the last days,” that 
is, the time just preceding the second coming of the Lord. This is indicated, 
also, by the future of the verb as connected with xapoi—the grievous times are 
not present, but future, belonging to the last period. The 5th verse, however, 
can hardly be explained, without finding in its words an intimation, that what 
thus belonged to the future was already beginning. According to the most natural 
interpretation of these verses, therefore, they would seem to point to the Parousia 
as, to the writer’s view, not very remote. Yet the time of its coming was uncer- 
tain, and it is evident from iv. 6, that he did uot himself now expect to live to 
see it—(b) The description of the men of these coming times is, in several par- 
ticulars, somewhat strikingly similar to that which is given of the heathen 
nations in Rom. i. 28 ff. At the same time, it is evident that it goes beyond what 
is there found, and we may believe that the Apostle bases his representation of 
their character on that of the erroneous teachers whom he sees already at work, 
and that he carries into the descriptive words the force which results from them. 
The words, accordingly, have a deeper meaning and they represent a depraved 
moral condition which is, in the sense that it comes from a wilful rejection of the 
truth, worse than that depicted in the earlier epistle—(c) Fairbairn supposes the 
persons alluded in ver. 6 as taking captive, etc., to be not teachers, but “of the class 
called sorcerers or magicians, men of bloated consciences and reprobate minds, 
who for merely selfish ends, played upon the weakness and credulity of mankind, 
and pre-eminently upon certain portions of the female section of them.” The 
general reference to teachers, however, which is manifest in all the other passages 
in which the errors are spoken of, renders it probable that a similar reference is 
to be found here. The action of these teachers was of the insinuating, selfish and 
misleading character, which Fairbairn suggests. He thinks the women here re- 
ferred to were “the frivolous and worldly-minded, who lived, for the most part, 
in fullness and pleasure, but were visited at times with recoils of feeling, guilty 
compunctions, fears of a judgment to come.” 


XXX. Vv. 10-17. 


(a) In this passage Paul sets forth the past course of Timothy, in contrast to ~ 
the course of the false teachers, and then urges him to continue in the same. 
Writers who, like Alford, regard Timothy as having grown weak and become 
fearful, find in the aorist tense, tapyxoAov6y0ac, as distinguished from the perfect, 
an intimation of this change. This seems unnecessary. The aorist refers to the 
time past, when Timothy had been in association with the Apostle as a fellow- 
laborer, and the standpoint of time which divides the past from the future is 
taken, as so frequently in Paul’s writings. Had there been any such special 
change, or falling back from faithfulness, in Timothy, it could hardly fail to have 
been brought out with greater clearness and definiteness.—(b) The reference to 
the Apostle’s own history and experience, which is made in these verses, is strik- 
ingly in accordance with his ordinary manner of alluding to himself in his earlier 


NOTES. 259 


epistles. The particular references here given are introduced, as explained by 
Huther, because the things mentioned took place when Timothy became his com- 
panion. The statement of the deliverance which had been granted to himself, 
and the declaration of ver. 12, are doubtless designed to strengthen and encourage 
Timothy to meet the sufferings which he might be called to undergo.—(c) The 
reading tivwy (ver. 14) is preferred by Huther, as also by Tisch. 8th ed., Treg., W. 
& H., Alf., and others. So also R. V. This reading has the best manuscript 
authority, and may easily have been changed by copyists to tivoc, in order to 
connect the instruction of Timothy with Paul. If tivwr is adopted, it refers, in 
all probability, to the grandmother and mother (comp. i. 5). That an allusion 
to them would be natural here, is indicated by the fact of the previous allusion in 
the first chapter, and that they are the persons whom the Apostle has in mind is 
rendered probable, if not certain, by the words azo {pégoue of yer. 15—(d) The 
construction of ver. 16 adopted by R: V., which makes @eézvevoroc a part of the 
subject and gives to xai the meaning oe is probably correct. The decision re- 
specting this point depends mainly on the connection of thought with the preced- 
ing verse. That verse assumes the ‘gpa character of the ypauwuara, and predicates 
of them that they are able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. It is exactly in 
accordance with this to regard ver. 16 as assuming the Yeorv. character of every 
Scripture, and as affirming that it is useful for the particular ends mentioned, 
which are all connected with the wisdom unto salvation through faith in Christ 
Jesus. The formal statement, that at Scripture i is inspired,-is.not_demanded by the _ 
context, or, “or, apparently, by_anything in Timothy’ s condition, and it seems ante- 
cedently ‘improbable that it would be made to him in such a passage as this, which 
relates to other subjects more immediately. Paul is not making an emphatic 
contrast here between the truth and the false teaching, considered in themselves 
or as to the source from which they come. He is, on the other hand, speaking 
only of the perfecting of the man of God and the furnishing him thoroughly for 
every good work.—The determination of the question as to the relation of teorv. 
to the sentence does not necessarily affect the teaching of the verse as to inspira- 
tion. If the adjective belongs to the subject,it.is to be observed, that, according 
_to the suggestion.of the. preceding verse, where iepd is a descriptive adjective, it 
most naturally qualifies maca ypady as an attributive word. It covers 7aca ypagn, 
accordingly, and does not mark or distinguish one ypag7 in the ‘epa yp. from 
another. The doctrine of the verse is thus, probably, the same—so far as inspira- 
tion is concerned—whichever construction is adopted. The doctrine is distinctly 
declared, if Georv. is a predicate ; it is assumed and implied, if ¥eorv is part of the 
subject. Questions of dynamical or mechanical or minute verbal inspiration are, | 
as Bp. Ellicott remarks, not determined by this verse. These questions must find 
their answer and solution in the various statements and phenomena of the Old 
and New Testaments, which have a bearing upon the subject.—(e) The phrase 
6 Tov Veov avOpwroc, (ver. 17), if determined in its meaning by the 16th verse, is 
to be taken in a general sense and with reference to every Christian. This must, 
probably, be regarded as the meaning intended by the writer; but it is not impos- 
sible that, in applying the general truth to Timothy, he inanete of him more 
particularly with reference to his official life, which was, indeed, the life within 
‘which thegood-works appointed for him to do would mainly fall. 


260 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 


CHAPTER IV. 


VER. 1. dtapapripoyac] The words ovv éy following this in the Ree. were 
omitted from the text by Griesb., on the authority of A C D* EF GL» 17, 
al., Syr. Erp. Copt. ete—The same is the case with the words tod kvpiov, against 
which there is the testimony of A C D* F G & 31, 37, al—For xpivew the 
aorist xpivac is found in F G, several cursives, Theodoret, and Theoph. ; this 
construction does occur sometimes in the N. T. (also in classic Greek), but there 
is not sufficient authority for it here—xara riv éxi@pdvecav] For xara (Ree. after 
D*** E K L, ete.), sai is the reading of A C D* F G 8 17, al., Copt. Vulg. 
ms. It. Harl. etc. This reading, as it implies a change of construction in the verb, 
and even then makes the connection difficult, is of a kind which would easily give 
occasion for correction; the easiest correction was into «até. Chrysostom in his 
commentary reads: év 7H émigaveia. Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly adopted kai, 
which is approved also by Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, and van Oosterzee. 
Reiche, on the other hand, because of the difficulty of the reading, kai, regards 
the Ree. as the original reading, while he connects kata with péAAovrag xpivew as 
a preposition of time.—Ver. 2. Tisch. 7 reads érvtiuyoov, rapaxaAecov, with the 
majority of the authorities ; whereas Tisch. 8 reads tapaxadecov, éxitiunoov, The 
placing of éxitiuyoov first may be a correction, because this word is related in 
meaning to the previous éAeyfov.-Ver. 3. tag iiac érifuuiac] adopted by Griesb. 
in place of ta¢ émAyuiag rac idiac, on the authority of A C D E F G 8 3, 37, 
al., Arm. Vulg. ete—Ver. 6. Instead of tie éuje avadtcewc, which is the Ree. 
supported by D E K L, al. (Tisch. 7), it is more correct, with Lachm. Buttm. 
and Tisch. 8, to read ti¢ avadtoedc pov, on the authority of A C F G x, al— 
Ver. 7. For tov ayova tov kaddv (Tisch. 7), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the 
authority of A C F GX, al., adopted dv Kadov ayova, which is certainly in 
harmony with the usage of the Pastoral Epistles, but for that very reason may be a 
‘correction.—Ver. 10. For the Ree. éyxaréAutev.(D* K 8, ete.), Tisch. 7 adopted 
the imperfect éyxaréAectev, on the authority of A C D** and *** E F G L, 
etc.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec. which is supported by D* K 8, ete—In C 8, 
several cursives, and Fathers, T'adiav is found instead of the Rec. Tadariav ; 
Epiph. Haer. 57, dis. says: ov yap év Tadaria, &¢ tivec rAavatlévtec vouitovow, 
aAsa év ty Tadia; of this reading Reiche says: est utique notatu digna; .. . me 
cum Bengelio in hance lectionem inclinare sentio. But the Mss. almost all support 
the Ree. ; and it cannot be inferred from the name -Kpyoxye (Crescens) that this 
man was sent more probably to Gaul, where Latin was in use, than to Galatia, 
where Greek was spoken (Reiche) ; it is too rash, therefore, to regard this as the 
original reading. Tisch. 8, however, adopted it, whereas Tisch. 7 does not even 
mention it; Hofmann thinks it the correct reading—Ver. 11. For dye, Lachm. 
Buttm. and Tisch. 7 read the form éyaye, which, however, does not seem to have 
sufficient testimony in A 31, 58, ete.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec., with the support 
of almost all authorities—Ver. 13. For gedovyv are found also the forms gacAavny, 





CHAP. Iv. 1, 2. 261 


gaAdvnv, geAdvav ; but geAdvyv is best supported. While Tisch. 7 adopted the 
imperfect azéAevtov, on the authority of A C F G, ete., Tisch. 8 read the aorist 
arédurov (Rec.), on the authority of D E K 8, al.; so, too, Lachm. and Buttm. 
—Ver. 14. arodéce] This is rightly read by Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on 
the authority of A C D* gr. E F G 8 6,17, al., Copt. Arm. ete., Chrys. Theo- 
doret, instead of atodéy, which has the support of D*** E** K L, ete., Tisch. 
7, Reiche—Ver. 15. av6éornxe] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 rightly read avréory, on 
the authority of A C D* F G &, al.; Tisch. 7 read avééoryxev, on the authority 
of D*** E K L, ete—Ver. 16. ouurapeyévero] Following A C F G & 17, al. 
Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 adopted the simple tapeyévero ;—no doubt the compound 
ouurapey. (Tisch. 7) occurs seldom in the N. T., being found elsewhere only in 
Luke xxiii. 48; but it seems nevertheless to be a correction made on account of 
ot. Here, too, the readings vary between the imperfect éyxatéAevtov (Rec.) and 
the aorist éyxatéAutov; Tisch. 7 has the former, Tisch. 8 the latter; comp. vv. 10 
and 13.—Ver. 17. Instead of the singular dxotoy, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 
rightly read the plural axotows:, supported by A C D EF G 8 17, 39, al—Ver. 
18. Kaé at the beginning of the verse was rightly omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and 
Tisch., on the authority of A C D* & 31, al., versions, Fathers; it was inserted 
to connect this verse with the preceding one—Ver. 20. M:Ajt»] For this A has 
MyAwre, and Arab. Medity.—Ver. 22. For the Rec. 6 Kbpioc "Inoovg Xpioté¢ (C 
D E K L), Lachm. and Buttm. have 6 xépio¢ "Iycove (A 31), Tisch. only 6 kiproc 
(F G 17, etc.). Lachmann’s reading should perhaps have the preference, as 
it is the one most open to correction.—4ay4v was omitted by Griesb. as a later 
addition. 


Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1-8, see Note XXXL. pages 275-277.] Exhortation to 
faithful performance of official duty, enforced by the introductory formula: 
Sawaptipouat évoriov tov Oeov x.7.A.] Comp. ii. 14; 1 Tim. v. 21.—rov pédrov- 
roc Kpivew ¢. Kk. vexp.] Theophylact rightly expounds it: Cavra¢ Kai vexpove 
Aéyer Tove Hn areAfdvtac, Kai Tog T6TE KaTahEeLpOyoouévove CavTac; COMp. if 
Thess. iv. 16, 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. Christ is called judge of the dead and 
the living, also in Acts x. 42; 1 Pet. iv.5; itis quite wrong to suppose 
that the spiritually dead and living are meant. The allusion to the last 
judgment gives special strength to the exhortation —«ai jv émpavecav 
avrov] Most expositors adopt xara, the usual reading, as the correct one, 
and then take it asa preposition of time (Matt. xxvii. 15; Acts xiii. 27; 
Heb. iii. 8), belonging to xpivew. With the correct reading, tiv émig. x71. 
depends on dcavapripoua: as the accusative of the oath (so, too, van Oos- 
terzee and Plitt). [XX XI a.] It is, however, to be noted that in the N. T. 
Siapapripecbac does not mean “swear” by itself, but only in connection 
with évdériov tov Ocod (only in the Pastoral Epistles), and therefore only in 
this connection does it, like other verbs of swearing, govern the accusative, 
as Hofmann rightly remarks. Hence it follows that «ai does not connect 
éxidavecay with the previous évémov, but belongs to the following xaé: 
“both ... and” (Hofmann). De Wette, appealing to Deut. iv. 26, incor- 
rectly expoundsit: “TI call his appearance, etc.,to witness;” present things 
may be summoned as witnesses, but not future events like the érupavea of 
Christ—The Vulg. has: per adventum, without sai: probably a transla- 


262 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


tion of xardé, which is taken as xara with the genitive, Matt. xxvi. 63.— 
émipaveca, See 1 Tim. vi. 14.—xai tiv Bacrdsiav abrov] Several expositors join 
the two expressions as an hendiadys (Bengel: éravera est revelatio et 
exortus regni) = tyv én. tH¢ Baoideiac avtov; but the airov with émd. is - 
against this. The two things are considered separately (Wiesinger: “the 
repetition of airod is rhetorical; each element is intended to be taken 
independently, and considered in its full significance”); the Baodeia abtov 
is the regnum gloriae which begins with the return of Christ—The reason 
for adding these words lies in the xpivew ¢. x. v.; Paul says he has Christ’s 
second coming and kingdom in his thoughts, that he may give greater 
importance to his exhortation.—Ver. 2. kjpvgov tov Adyov] In 1 Tim. vy. 21, 
diaz, is followed by iva with the conjunctive ; but here we have the simple 
imperative, which makes the appeal all the more urgent (Wiesinger).—rov 
Aéyov, sc. tov Oeov] This more precise definition is wanting here, because 
the emphasis lies chiefly on the verb, Paul indicating to Timothy the work 
to be done.—érioryH evKaipw¢ axaipwc] [XX XI b.] Most expositors join these 
words closely with «jpvfov insense. Heydenreich : éxiori, sc. ro knpbooew, 
Theodoret : oby drAde kai bg Ervyev abrov Kypittew mapeyyvd, aAAa rdvta Karpov 
éritqdevov Tpo¢ TovTo vouifew. WVulg.: “insta;” Luther: “ persist;” so also 
van Oosterzee ; similarly Wiesinger, who, in harmony with ériyeve abroic, 
1 Tim. iv. 16, expounds it: ‘“‘ keep one’s attention or activity directed to a 
thing.” But this is not the usual meaning of the verb; it means rather 
“ step towards or draw near” (Hofmann is less precise: “approach, appear”), 
comp. Luke ii. 8, 38, and other passages. The word is defined more pre- 
cisely by xfpvgov tov Aéyov: draw near with the preaching of the word. 
Who are the persons to whom Timothy is to draw near, may easily be 
supplied from the context, viz. to those to whom he has to preach the 
word. It is incorrect to think only of the whole church (Bretschneider : 
accede ad coetus christianos, so also de Wette), or only of the individual 
members (so before in this commentary). Plitt is correct: “draw near 
(to men), viz. with the word.’’—evxaipuc axaipwc"] Chrysostom : ju) Karpov &ye 
Gpiouévov, aet coi kaipoc éorw. The further definition given by Chrysostom : 
_kav év Toic Kwvdivo.c, Kav év deouwTypie ne x.7.2., or by Theodoret: kai év deouw- 
- TIP, Kat Toiw Kat Tapaxeruévyc Tparétyc, and-others similar by other exposi- 
tors, are wrong, since we ought to think here not so much of the cireum- 
stances in which Timothy (or more generally the preacher of the word) 
may be, but of the circumstances of the hearers: “whether the time 
seems to thee seasonable or unseasonable for it” (de Wette, Wiesinger, 
van Oosterzee). Hofmann is wrong: “whether he comes seasonably or 
not to those whom he approaches with the word ;” for there was no need 
‘to tell Timothy that the preacher was not bound to inquire into his 
hearers’ opinion and act accordingly. For the truth, the occasion is 
always seasonable. He who desires to wait until the occasion seem com- 


‘Similar collocations without any particle ates; madaywyo éuBpiber orcs, evKaipws 
of union or separation are not found in the akaipws. émrémAntrev. Julian: émropeveto émi 
N.'T., but oceur in Greek and Latin classics; Tas Tov iAwy oixias akAnTos KEeKAnmevos. 
see Bengel on this passage. Nicetas Choni- Virgil: digna indigna pati. 


CHAP. IV. 3, 4. 263 


pletely favorable for his work, will never find it. This is particularly true 
of the exercise of the evangelic office—Note, finally, Beza’s remark: 
nempe quod ad carnis prudentiam pertinet; nam alioqui requiritur 
sanctae prudentiae spiritus, captans occasiones ad aedificationem oppor- 
tunas.—é2eyéov] should be restricted neither to heresies nor to moral 
transgressions; it includes blame of everything blameworthy.—ércriuyoov] 
stronger than é4eygov: “blame with decided manifestation of dislike ;” 
often in the Gospels, also in Jude 9.—rapaxaiecov] Blame and exhortation 
should be joined in order to cause edification; blame by itself embitters, 
exhortation by itself is ineffectual—év rdoy paxpobvuia kai didayn] An 
appendix to zapaxddecov, or, according to the reading of Tisch. 8, to 
éxitiugoov, With which, however, it seems less appropriate. On jaxpoOvuia, 
comp. ili. 10.—dé:day7] The exhortation is to be of a kind that will instruct; 
the purpose, as Heydenreich aptly remarks, is not to produce momentary 
emotion and violent tumult of feeling. Avdayf is instruction, and is not 
equivalent to studium alios vera docendi. It is wrong, too, to make it an 
hendiadys, as if it were év rdon didayqe paxpobvuia.i—Note the connection 
of this verse with 11.16. The preacher of the divine word has not to 
perform the work of teaching, of reproving, etc., without placing himself 
under the teaching, the reproof, etc., of the divine word. 

Vv. 3, 4. Ground of the previous exhortation, éorac yap kaipdc, bre] 
[XXXI1 ¢.] see ii. 16, 17, iii. 1 ff—The éora shows that he is speaking not 
of the present (Heinrichs), but of the future; comp. ii. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 1.— 
tHe bytavovonc didacxadiac] see 1 Tim. i. 10.—ov« avéfovrac] [XXXI d.] 
comp. Acts xviil. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 4. De Wette: “find intolerable, because 
not consistent with their desires.”—a2A2a kata rac iWiag ériBuulac] “ accord- 
ing to wilful, selfish lusts;” the accent is on idéac—a contrast to obedience 
under the divine will.—éavroic éxicwpetaover didackddove] éxtowpeber (am. Aey., 
the simple form in ii. 6), “heap up, procure in abundance.” Heyden- 
reich’s conjecture is groundless, that the word here has the suggestion of: 
they will set him up for a burden to themselves (Luther: “ burden them- 
selves’’) for their own hurt; on the other hand, Chrysostom is right: 16 
adiakpitov TARO Sia Tov Exrtowpevoovor, Edjiwoe. We cannot but see that the 
word here is meant to indicate the contemptible part of their conduct. 
The ézi does not compel us to follow Hofmann in his exposition: “in 
addition to those who represent sound doctrine;” what follows rather 
shows that they turn away from all such.—The reason is given in the 
words: kvyGduevor tiv axonv. Kvifw (ar. Aey.), tickle, cause to itch; «v766- 
pevor tiv axonv, “be tickled in the ear,” i.e. feel a tickling in the ear (rv 
axoyv being the accusative of more precise definition). This tickling is 
usually taken to mean a pleasant sensation;' so Hesychius: (yrovvrec ri 
axovoa Kal’ jdovgv, and almost all expositors. But this view, before adopted 
in this commentary, is opposed by the fact that (yrotvrec is purely imported. 
The present participle cannot mean: “that they wish to feel a tickling in 
the ear, but only that they do feel it.” Hofmann is therefore right in 


1Plutarch (De Superst. p. 167): povoixyy avOpwmos ov tpvdis Evexa Kai KvycEews wey 
So0nvat. 


264 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


explaining this tickling-of the ear to mean the desire of hearing some- 
thing different from what they had heard before; “because they feel a 
tickling in the ear, they procure for themselves teachers after their own 
lusts.” —Ver. 4. kai amd pév tig ad. K.7.A.] tHe aAnbeiag = THe by. didacKadias. 
—éini dé rove pidovc] see 1 Tim. i. 4.—éxrparqoovtac] see 1 Tim. i. 6. 

Ver. 5. A general exhortation summing up the particulars already 
mentioned.—od dé] see ili. 10—rj¢e é&v rao] vide, synonymous with 
ypnyopeiv, 1 Thess. v. 6, and cwpoveiv, 1 Pet. iv. 7, opposite of “be intoxi- 
cated ;” it denotes the clear prudence in thought and action which it is 
all the more necessary for Timothy to show, because there is impending 
what the apostle in vv. 3, 4 has described.—év raov] “in all parts.”— 
kaxoraOjoov] [XX XI e.] see i. 8, ii. 3.—épyov roinoov evayyeduorov] According 
to Eph. iv. 11, there were special evangelists, who were distinct both from 
the apostles and from the pastors and teachers. Theodoret characterizes 
them in the well-known words: zepiovrec éxjputtov. They did not belong 
to a particular church like the zrovuévec, but traveled about like the apostles, 
preaching the Gospel to the Jews or heathen. They could lay no claim 
to authority in their office, since, as Otto rightly remarks,! they labored 
not in consequence of an office committed to them, but by means of a 
xapicua imparted to them, as did also the zpodyra. It is incorrect to 
identify them with the assistant apostles. Philip was an evangelist (Acts 
xxi. 8), but not an assistant apostle. Timothy, Titus, and others were 
assistant apostles, and as such, evangelists only in the same sense in which 
the apostles themselves were evangelists ; standing in closer relation to 
the apostles, they were their ovvepyo¢ in all official duties, and all they did 
belonged to their diaxovia (so, too, Plitt).2 As the ebayyerifecbar was Tim- 
othy’s chief vocation (as with the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 1.17), the apostle 
exhorts him: épyov roijoov evayyedcorov, adding the further exhortation : 
tiv diakoviay cov rAnpoddpnoov. This latter is not to be taken as a mere 
repetition of the preceding one, or as “only laying emphasis on the 
same thought by the use of rAypodépycov” (Wiesinger), since, as the 
whole of the first epistle testifies, his dcaxovia included more than the 
ebayyeniteobac (which Hofmann wrongly denies *).—zAypogopeiv] synony- 
mous here with zAypotv, which is even the réading of some Mss. Luther 
rightly: “execute;” see Col. iv. 17; Acts xii. 25. Though zAypogopetv in 


1Comp. too, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, pp. 
272 f. 

2 Wiesinger is wrong in thinking that Timo- 
thy’s office was only that of an evangelist, and 
therefore quite the same as Philip had, and 
that his labors beyond that in Ephesus did 
not belong to his étaxovia. It is certain that 
his labors were done on the special commis- 
sion of Paul; but it is incorrect to suppose 
that Paul commissioned him to do anything 
beyond his office —Otto’s remark on the re- 
lation of the evangelists to the assistant 
apostles agrees in substance with what has 
been said above, only it might be more than 


doubtful that their preaching, as he thinks, © 
was confined to an account of Christ’s words 
and works, that they were therefore only 
“heralds of the gospel history.”—Otto rightly 
says that the assistant apostles “ represented 
the apostle in the entire range of his work.” 

3 Hofmann, without reason, supposes that 
at the time when Paul wrote this epistle, and 
even before, Timothy was no longer an 
assistant to Paulin the apostleship. Thera 
is no hint of this anywhere; on the contrary, 
the contents of the second epistle are de- 
cidedly against the supposition. 


CHAP. Iv. 5, 6. 265 


this sense is dz. Acy., still it is well employed “to indicate the full measure 
of activity, in which not the least point may fail” (van Oosterzee). Beza’s 
exposition is too ingenious: ministerii tui plenam fidem facito, i. e. veris 
argumentis comproba te germanum esse dei ministrum. 

Ver.6. Paul points to his approaching death in order to strengthen his 
exhortation to Timothy to fulfill his duties faithfully. [XX XI f.] As he 
himself cannot any longer contend against the increasing disorder, Timo- 
thy must be all the more careful to prove himself faithful—éya yap 767 
orévdouar] éy@ is emphatic by position, being in contrast with ov, ver. 5.— 
767] not “soon,” but “already ;” it denotes present time; his sufferings 
form already the beginning of the orévdecfar.—orévdouar] Wahl wrongly 
takes the verb here in the middle voice : sanguinem meum libo, i. e. vires 
et vitam impendo. But it is impossible thus to supply the object; the 
verb is passive. It does not, however, stand for kataorévdoua: “IT am 
besprinkled,” 7. e. [am consecrated for the sacrificial death (Heydenreich 
and others); the proper meaning is to be retained: “I am made a libation, 
poured out as drink-offering” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hof- 
mann). The meaning is, dropping the figure, already is my blood shed: 
comp. Phil. 11. 17. De Wette maintains that the forth of expression is 
incorrect without éxi rH Ovoig «.7.A.; but why, it is difficult to see. Hein- 
richs wrongly lets the idea of sacrifice drop out of the word, and explains 
it quite generally as effundere, 7. e. viribus defici, “ my end is already near, 
itis all over with me.” Luther translates it inexactly, but rightly enough 
in meaning: “I am already offered.”—Paul does not use @iouar, but oxév- 
dowat, not because he means to declare that he is fully and conupletely 
offered for God’s cause (Oecumenius: rie pév Ovoiac pépoc ti pdvov C&G 
ei¢ Ouuiaua ageepovto" 4 dé oxovd7 Gaxaca avT@ adiépwrar), but because the 
shedding of blood is analogous to the pouring out of the drink-offering ; 
and as the libation formed the conclusion of the sacrifice, the apostle’s 
martyrdom closed his apostolic service, which to him was the same as a 
service of sacrifice (Rom. x. 16; Phil. ii. 17).—The idea contained in the 
figurative expression that his death was near, is again expressed by Paul 
in the next words: kai 6 kaipd¢ ti¢ avaricedc pov égéotnxe] The verb dvartew 
means “unloose what was tied,” so that avd/vo1 might be equivalent to 
“unloosing,” dissolutio (Vulgate, Matthies); but it is more correct to 
return to the usage by which in nautical language dva4tew with or without 
dykypav means “weigh anchor, depart,” or even of an army, “strike tents, 
set out on the march.” Hence avdivore is equivalent to “departure, set- 
ting out,” and ought to be explained as the departure from this life; see 
Phil. i. 23.1. Elsner and Wolf think that there is here a special reference 
to rising from table, and that the word is used in very close connection 
with oxévdoyac: moris olim erat, ut, qui de conviviis discederent, diis liba- 
rent; discedentes autem dicebantur dvadtovrec et libantes (Wolf), and 


10Otto objects, that in Phil. i. 23 avaddoac tion is made still less forcible by the fact 
does not of itself mean the departure from that this meaning of the word is clearly in- 
the flesh, but only when connected with the dicated, not only by the preceding omévdouat, 
co-ordinate civ Xpiorg civat. But his objec- but also by vy. 7, 8 


266 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


that Paul means to say : se ex hac vita molestiisque exsatiatum abiturum, 
libato non vino, sed sanguine suo (Elsner). But, on the one hand, the 
allusion to orévdovat is not to heathen, but to Jewish ritual; and, on the 
other hand, there is no hint of the figure of a feast. Not less arbitrary is 
Beza’s explanation, that avaavorw refers specially to the departure from 
battle.—igéornxe] “is near at hand;” Luther incorrectly: “is ready.” 


ReMARK.—<According to the exposition which has been given here, and which, 
in substance, is generally accepted, this passage decidedly contradicts the hypothe- 
sis that Paul wrote this epistle at the beginning of the imprisonment mentioned 
by Luke. Otto, therefore, to favor this hypothesis, finds himself compelled to 
give orévdoua: another signification. This he tries to obtain from a searching con- 
sideration of the passage in Phil. ii. 17. He tries to prove that the apostle in 
that passage could only have used ozévdoua in the sense of “devotion to his mis- 
sionary labors.” His proof is based on the assertion—apparently to the point, 
but in reality erroneous—that when the particles i kai are joined together, “the 
kai resumes the statement made under «i the conditional particle, at the same 
time marking it as an actual fact.” This assertion is apparently to the point, since 
ei kai is used often where an actual fact is under discussion; and in this way, e. g., 
the passage at 2 Cor. iv. 16 may be explained: “if our outward man is destroyed, 
—and it is actually being destroyed,—then,” etc. But the assertion is erroneous, be- 
cause ¢ Kai is also used in passages where no actual fact is under discussion. This, 
e. J. is the case in the passage 1 Cor. vii. 21, where, clearly, the explanation can- 
not be given: “if thou canst become free—and thow canst indeed become free.” Otto 
has quite overlooked the fact that « «ai with the indicative cannot be different 
from the simple ¢ with the indicative, and this does not declare the fact to be act- 
ual, but only supposes it to be actual, whether actual or not; the fact may be actual, 
but it may quite as well not be actual, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 12, 18, where both cases 
stand close to one another. Hence it is not the case that o7évdeo#ac must denote 
something which, as the apostle said it of himself, did actually take place; it can- 
not therefore be understood to mean the apostle’s martyrdom, because, according 
to Phil. i. 25, he was expecting to be freed from imprisonment, but must mean 
simply the cessation of his missionary labors—As for the evidence by which Otto 
seeks to obtain this meaning for o7évdeodaz, it must be held erroneous, since there 
is no justification whatever for the assertions on which it rests—vyiz. (1) that by 
the éy contained in oxévdoua (standing here in opposition to ot) the apostle 
meant his “apostolic labors ;” and (2) that in Acts xxiii. 11, by the word of the 
Lord “ Rome was appointed to the apostle as the goal of his apostolic calling, be- “ 
yond which he was not to preach the gospel.” Though it may be said that “the 
apostle’s ego lived and wrought only in one thing, and that, to preach the gospel 
to the heathen,” it by no means follows that when he is speaking of himself, he 
does not mean himself, his person, but his apostolic calling. And though, accord- 
ing to Phil. i. 25, 26, the apostle expects to continue his labors after the Roman 
imprisonment, it is a pure fiction to suppose that these labors were to be episcopal 
rather than apostolic,—As a result of this interpretation of orévdouac, Otto can- 


1Weiss (Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 588) rightly slightest hint that he is to advance with his 
says: “If it be said to the apostle that he is preaching only so far as Rome.” 
to testify also in Rome, there is not the 


CHAP.-1Va%, 8: 267 


not understand avdAvovg to mean the departure from this life ; it is quite consistent 
for him, therefore, to say : “avadvorg can only be the discessus, abitus from the 
place in which Paul then was, this place being the tépza of his apostolic career.” 
This exposition presupposes an erroneous view of Acts xxiii. 11, and its unsuit- 
ability becomes all the clearer when Otto continues: “when the messenger has 
come to his destination, and executed his commission, he must return to him by 
whom he was sent; Paul was sent by Christ, to Christ he must return; this is 
what the apostle says: the time of my return home is near, for I am at the goal, 
and have discharged my commission.” And then Otto still thinks that the apos- 
tle might with this cherish the expectation of being able to labor among the 
Philippians /or a longer period, since é¢éoryxev does not mean “is near,” but sim- 
ply “is impending” (!). Finally, there is nowhere the slightest trace that the 
apostle thought at any time before his death of ceasing to be the apostle of the 
Lord. 


Ver. 7. In the prospect of his approaching end, Paul expresses the con- 
sciousness of having been faithful in the career appointed to him, and the 
hope of the heavenly reward.—There is no ground whatever for de Wette’s 
assertion, that this expression is opposed to Christian humility.—rov kaddv 
ayéva hyoviowat| Luther inaccurately : “ I have fought a good fight.” The 
definite article must not be overlooked; see 1 Tim. vi. 12. The perfect 
nyovioua Shows that the apostle now stood at the end of the fight to which 
he was called as the apostle of the Lord,’ and that he had fought through 
it faithfully—Baur, quite arbitrarily, isof opinion that Phil. i. 80 was here 
made use of; as little was the passage at Phil. iii. 12 ff. used (de Wette). 
—rov dpduov tetéAnxa] The same thought is expressed by the more definite 
figure of a race. The point chiefly brought out is that the apostle, after 
continuing it without stopping, now stands at the goal. Compare with 
this passage Acts xx. 24; the same figure is used also in 1 Cor. ix. 24, and 
is indicated in Phil. ii. 12 ff—ryv riorw rerppnxa] “ Ihave kept the faith,” viz. 
against all inducements to deny it. Heydenreich wrongly takes this 
expression also as a figurative one, and expounds ziorc to mean fidelity 
in observing the laws of battle and rules of the race; comp. against this, 
1 Tim. vi. 12.—rdv xatdv ayava ric rictewc] Bengel: res bis per metaphoram 
expressa nunc tertio loco exprimitur proprie. 

Ver. 8. Aourév| Wahl interprets it by 767 (jam, already), but this mean- 
ing is very doubtful. Other expositors take it to be equivalent to 7d 
dordv: “for the future ;” Heydenreich: “one day, after course and fight 
are finished.” But the present aréxecrac is against this; it cannot be 
“future in sense” (Hofmann), for the signification of the word forbids it. 
Beza’s interpretation suits the context best: “in reliquum;” and with 
this de Wette and Wiesinger agree. At the end of his life-course, when 
he has faithfully played out his part, there remains nothing more for the 
apostle—than to receive the reward which is already prepared for him.— 
arékertai wor] comp. Col. i. 5 (see my Commentary, p. 57).—4é rij¢ dixatooivye 

1Hofmann wrongly maintains that the Christian calling. The context clearly points 


apostle is not speaking here of his labors in to the former. 
the calling of an apostle, but generally of his 


268 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


orégavoc] Continuation of the figure from ver. 7.—é oréavog is used for the 
prize of victory in 1 Cor. ix. 25.. The genitive rie duxawoobvye, like rhe Cone 
in Jas.i. 12, Rev. ii. 10, and rie dééy¢ in 1 Pet. v. 4, may be taken most 
naturally as the genitivus appositionis, and d:xavoctvy as the perfect state, 
granted at the judgment to the believer by the sentence that justifies him 
(so, too, van Oosterzee). Ackatocivy does not denote the act of justifying so 
much as the state of justification. [XX XI g.]—Two other interpretations 
are found in Heinrichs: ore. dixavoc., ¢. e. corona, vel quae dixaivce dabitur 
ei, qui ea dignus est, a duxaiw xpirq (“the crown of just recompense,” Hey- 
denreich, Matthies, and others; but d:xavooivy never means recompense), 
vel quae mihi ob dicavocivyy debetur. This last interpretation is found in 
Chrysostom : dicacoobvyv évraifa tiv Kabédov gyoiv aperqv; also in de Wette, 
Wiesinger, Plitt. It is indeed possible, but improbable, because in that 
case we would not be told of what the crown of victory consists. Besides, 
the analogy of the passages quoted is against this interpretation.'—It is 
manifestly quite out of place to understand dixavocivy here, as Calovius 
and Mosheim do, of the imputed righteousness of Christ—év aroddcer 
(often used to denote the divine recompense on the day of judgment, 
Matt. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 6) x01 6 Kipwoc (ti. €. Christ) év éxeivy th juépa, 6 dixacoc 
xpithe (see ver. 1), in apposition to 6 kbpic. There is nothing strange in 
laying stress on the righteousness of the judge, since that forms the main 
element in the divine judgment. God’s ydpic does not take away His 
Sixacooivy, and the gospel does not deny, but confirms, the truth that for 
the believer the judgment will take place xara ra épya avrov, or Kata THY TpaEw 
To this truth Paul often directs attention, not only for exhortation, 
but also for comfort ; see 2 Thess, i. 5.~—While Paul expresses for himself 
the hope of the reward of victory, he knows that he is not claiming some- 
thing special for himself alone. Hence he adds: ov pdévov dé éuoi (se. aro- 
ddcet K.T.A.), aAAd Kai aot Toicg HyarnK6or] the perfect in the sense of the pre- 
sent: “who have fixed their love on,” 7. e. “who love” (comp. Winer, p. 
256 LE. T. p. 273]). But if we proceed from the standpoint of azodécev, 
the perfect may also be understood to mean: “ to those who in this mortal 
life have longed for the appearing of the Lord ” (Hofmann).—r)v éxipdvecav 
aitov] is not to be understood of the first appearance of the Lord in the 
flesh, i. 10, but, according to the context, and in harmony with ver. 1, of 


avrov. 


1 Hofmann disputes the interpretation given 
above, because “Life, glory is a blessing, 
. Whereas righteousness is a condition which 
is rewarded;” but righteousness, taken as it 
is taken here, is a blessing. On the other 
hand, Hofmann disputes Wiesinger’s inter- 
pretation, at the same time giving one of his 
own which is far from clear: “he who 
obtains the orépavos adjudged to him, is 
thereby acknowledged ‘to be a righteous 
man.” 

2De Wette is wrong in his assertion, that 
this passage is incompatible with Paul’s view 
of grace, and that from a subjective stand- 


point God’s righteousness can only be feared 
if we are rightly humble and have knowledge 
of self. If it is not denied that in the Pauline 
passages, Rom. ii. 5 ff., 2 Thess. i. 5, a reward 
is expected from God’s righteousness, we can- 
not see why Paul could not possibly have 
claimed it for himself. Was the conscious- 
ness of his fidelity in the service of the Lord, 
which, moreover, he expresses elsewhere, 
altogether incompatible with his utterance 
of humility in Phil. iii. 12?—The contrast of 
objective and subjective point of view—to 
which contrast de Wette makes appeal—does 
not exist for the Christian consciousness. 


CHAP. Iv. 9-11. 269 
the second coming. The verb jyar7xé0 is not opposed to this, for it is 
used elsewhere to denote the desire for something future ; see 1 Pet. iii. 10. 
Matthies: “to all who in love for Him wait longingly for His second 
coming.” 

Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-22, see Note XXXII., pages 277, 278.] From this 
verse to the end we have detached commissions and items of news. ‘ This 
forms the second chief section of the epistle. The apostle, with his usual 
habit of keeping the more personal matter for the end, places it after the 
exhortations given to Timothy about his office” (Wiesinger).—ozotdacov 
éAbeiv mpoc pe tayéwc] [XXXII a.] Here the apostle’s wish that Timothy 
should come to him, hinted already in i. 3, 8, isdistinctly expressed. Even 
if it were the proximate cause of his writing, it is arbitrary to regard this 
as the chief purpose of the epistle, as de Wette does.'—The apostle wished 
him to come, because those who had assisted him hitherto had left him. 

Ver. 10. Anuac yap pe éyxatédurev] [XXXII b.] éycaradcizew is equivalent 
to “leave in the lurch.” It is wrong to interpret this either of a depart- 
ure from the place merely, or of an entire apostasy from the gospel. 
Demas is mentioned also in Col. iv. 14 and Philem. 24 as a cuvepyé¢ of the 
apostle.—ayarjoac tov viv aiéva] The reason why Demas had left him ; 
ayarjoac, not “having. fixed his love on” (Matthies), but “because he 
loved.” —rdv viv aidva] the present world, as opposed to the future, 7. e. the 
earthly, visible blessings of life. In the desire for these things, Demas 
had left the apostle and gone to Thessalonica, kai éropebfy ei¢ Oecoahovixyy, 
perhaps “for the sake of trade,” as some conjecture, or because it was his 
native place.2—Kpjoxye sic Tadatiay, sc. éropet6y; but without ayarqoag Tov 
vov aiava. Crescens is mentioned only here. Nothing further is known 
of him, nor do we know why he had set out for Galatia, and Titus for 
Dalmatia. The verb ézopet() is against the suggestion of Matthies, that 
they had been sent thither by Paul.’ 

Ver. 11. Aoveac éor? pdvoe per’ guov] There is no reason for doubting that 
this Luke was the apostle’s well-known assistant. He accompanied Paul 
on his second missionary journey from Troas, Acts xvi. 10, then on his 
third journey, Acts xx. 5-xxi. 18. He was with Paul both in his impris- 
onment at Caesarea and in the first imprisonment at Rome, Acts xxvil.; 
Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24.—Médpxov avadaBov ayaye (OY Common reading: 
aye) peta ceavtov] Mark, too, is the young apostle with whom we are 
acquainted from the Book of Acts. According to Col. iv. 10, Philem. 13, 
he was likewise with Paul in his first Roman imprisonment ; avaaBav, 
see Acts xx. 14. It is not known where Mark was at this time. The 
reason why Paul wished to have him is given in the words: éore yap jor 


1 Hofmann’s remark is purely hypothetical,  oixoc tpudav, % mer’ Euod TadaimwpeiaGar Kat 


that orovéacoy «.7.A. is not an invitation, but 
refers to Timothy’s willingness to come, 
which he had expressed to Paul in a 
letter. 

2Chrysostom: rys averews epacbeis, Tov 
axwwSvvov Kat Tod agdhadovs, “addov eElAeTo 


cuvdtahépery or ToVs TapovTas Kivdvvous. 

3 Hofmann, taking TaAcav to be the original 
reading, supposes that Crescens and Titus 
had left the apostle in order to work for the 
gospel in places to which Paul himself had 
not come. 


20 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 


edxpyotoc ei¢ dtakoviay| ebypyotoc, ii. 21. Acaxovia here is to be understood 
of the apostolic office’ (according to Wiesinger: “of Mark’s personal ser- 
vices, but certainly in the apostle’s vocation ”’). . 

Ver. 12. Tigixov dé aréotei2a sic “Egecov] Tychicus was in Greece with 
Paul on the third missionary journey, and preceded him to Troas, Acts 
xx. 4,5. According to Col. iv. 7 and Eph. vi. 21, Paul sent him from 
Rome to Asia Minor. Otto thinks that this was the occasion mentioned 
here, and tries to prove it particularly by an interpretation of the passages 
quoted from the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians. There are, 
however, well-founded objections to his theory. The facts are such, the 
two occasions on which he was sent can obviously not be identical.—ei¢ 
*Egeoov| Paul here mentions Ephesus as the place to which he had sent 
Tychicus ; but we cannot infer from this, as Theodoret and de Wette infer, 
that Timothy had not at that time lived in Ephesus.—The reason why he 
was sent is not given. Possibly it was to convey this epistle (Wieseler) ; 
but not probably, for in such a case Paul would have certainly written 
mpoc of (Tit. 111. 12; Wiesinger). 

Ver. 138. Timothy is commissioned to bring with him certain belong- 
ings. The first named is Tov geAdvyv. On the various spellings of this 
word, see the Greek lexicons. Regarding the meaning, Chrysostom said : 
perovyv évtavba 70 iuatiov Aéyer’ Tie Jé pact TO yAwoodxouor, EvOa Ta BLBAia ExELTO ; 
and the most recent expositors are still at variance. Matthies takes it in 
the second meaning : “ cloak-bag, covering for books,” because it is improb- 
able that Paul should have left his traveling cloak behind him. De Wette 
adopts the first meaning, for the reason given by Bengel: theca non seor- 
sum a libris appellaretur. This is the more probable view; there is little 
force in the objection, that we cannot see what use Paul would have for 
the mantle when he was expecting death so soon.—év aréJurov év Tpwads 
mapa Kadpz»]| From this it is clear that Paul had been in Troas before he 
came to Rome, but the time is not stated. In any case, it is very improb- 
able (see Introd. p. 25) that this sojourn was the one mentioned in Acts 
xx. 6. He did not, however, touch at Troas on his voyage from Caesarea 
‘to Rome.—Carpus is mentioned only here.—xai ra BiBria, wartora Tae pEu- 
Bpdvac] Since Paul says nothing further about them, it is idle conjecture 
to define more precisely the contents of the books written on papyrus, 
and of the more valuable rolls of parchment. 

Vy. 14,15. Warning against a-certain Alexander. ’AAéFavdpoc 6 yadxeic] 
see on 1 Tim. i. 20.—70224 wor axa évedeifaro] The words point to a per- 
sonal injury which he had inflicted on the apostle. This must, however, 
be added to an attitude of opposition to his words, as is shown in the 
words : Aiav yap avréotn toic jyerépore Adyorc] It is doubtful where this was 


1What Otto (pp. 257 ff.) on this passage 
adduces regarding the relation of Mark to 
Paul are groundless suppositions. It is a 
purely arbitrary assumption that Mark, after 
abstaining for some time from work among 
the heathen, had again offered his services 
to Paul through Timothy. And it is equalty 


an assumption to say, that from the words 
evxpyotos x7T.A. it would appear that Mark 
could not have hitherto given Paul his 
services, because m that case Paul would not 
have “censured him regarding his useful- 
ness for the ministry” (I). 


CHAP. Iv. 12-17. 271 
done, and wnere Alexander was at the time of the composition of this 
epistle. Further, the warning: 6v kai od gvAdooov, may refer both “to 
Timothy’s presence in Ephesus and to his future stay in Rome” (de 
Wette). Wiesinger conjectures that this Alexander, a native of Ephesus, 
had come from there to Rome to give testimony against the apostle (at 
his xpéry aodoyia, ver. 16), and had afterwards returned to Ephesus. 
This conjecture obtains some~ probability from the fact that in the very 
next verse Paul speaks of the azo/oyia ; but this fact cannot be regarded as 
making the matter certain. The words preceding this warning, if we read 
arodacet avT@ 6 Kipiog Kata Ta Epya avtov, present no difficulty. [XXXII c.] 
Even with the reading azodéy they cannot form a reason for reproaching 
the apostle with a desire for vengeance ; Christian love does not extinguish 
the feeling of justice; besides, the apostle does not speak the words because 
of the personal injury, but because of Alexander’s hostility to the truth? 
Vv. 16,17. Information regarding the apostle’s present condition, év rq 
mTpoty jov arohoyia| arodoyia: the public appearance before the court; 
comp. Phil.i.7. "Ev 7@ zpéry shows that there was a second appearance 
in order to bring the case to an end. On the time when the first trial took 
place, see the Introduction, where, too, there is a discussion of Otto’s 
hypothesis, that it means the proceedings before Festus, as recounted in 
Acts xxv. 6-12.—oideic jor mapeyévero] “no one stood on my side, was 
present with me,” viz. as patronus* (defender). It is the negative expres- 
sion of the thought which in the next words is given positively: a//a 
mavtec pe éyxatédurov. [XXXII d.] As to the reason why they had left the 
apostle, Theodoret says rightly : ot kakoySeiac wv, aAAa devdiag 4 broxopyote. 
[XXXII e.]—However much this want of evangelic spirit may have 
pained the apostle, he says no word in anger: 7 aitoic AoyioSein : “ may 
it not be reckoned to them, but pardoned.”—Ver. 17. 6 68 kipid¢ por 
mapéoty | said in sharp antithesis to the previous thought. The presence 
of the Lord manifested itself to the apostle in the courage which he had 
to testify freely and openly regarding Him; hence kai évedvvapuooé pe] 
Chrysostom : tappyoiay éxapioato; comp. 1 Tim. i. 12; Phil. iv. 18. Ac- 
cording to Otto, this expression means simply that the Lord “ maintained 
the apostle’s cause against his accusers,’ which is clearly an unjustifiable 
paraphrase of the word, as the apostle is speaking not of his cause, but of 
himself. Even if évedvvéuece be used in a forensic sense, its signification 
cannot be altered; it applies to the strengthening which enabled the 


1Hofmann supposes that this Alexander 
was the same as the one mentioned in Acts 
xix., and that he had given testimony against 
the apostle in Ephesus. The opinion is 
manifestly too far-fetched, that Luke would 
not have mentioned him in the Acts, if the 
Roman Theophilus, for whom in the first 
place he wrote the Acts, “had not known 
Alexander from some other source, in the 
manner in which we make acquaintance with 
him in the passage before us.” 


2 Justin (quaest. 125, ad Orthod.) says of these 
words: mpérovoa avépt arooToAw wy exdixovvTe 
éautov, adda didovte tomov TH Opyy; Comp. 
Rom. xii. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 23. 

3 Wolf: verb. oupumapayiveo@ac indicat pa- 
tronos et amicos, qui alios, ad causam dicen- 
dam yoeatos, nune vraesentia sua, nune etiam 
oratione adjuvare solebant. Graeci dicunt 
nune rapayiverOar, nUNe Tapecvar, NUNC oup- 
mapetvar.—Ssee further, in Rein, Rém. Privat- 
recht, p. 425; Schomann, Attisch. Recht. p. 708. 


272 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


apostle so to speak as to ward off sentence against him. The purpose of this 
strengthening was: iva dé? éuov td Khpvyywa rAnpodopy dy] According to the 
meaning suitable to the word zAnpogopeiv in Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5, Beza trans- 
lates: “ut per me praeconio evangelii fides fieret.’”” Heydenreich, too, 
thinks that 7/ypo¢. refers to the confirmation of the gospel or testimony 
to it, either through the proofs delivered by Paul or through the joy he 
exhibited. But it is safer to take zAypod. in the same sense here as in 
ver. 5, some of the Mss. even reading 7Aypwdh for tAnpodopydy. It is, how- 
ever, inaccurate to take the expression in the sense of: “that I might be 
enabled to preach the gospel” (de Wette). In this interpretation full 
force is not given to zAypogopety. These words must be taken in very close 
connection with kai axotcn mdvra ta é6vy, and referred to the apostle’s 
being called to preach the gospel to the heathen. The kfpvyya, se. tov 
evayyediov, was fulfilled by Paul, inasmuch as it was done openly before all 
people (Wieseler, Wiesinger) in the metropolis of the world (was delivered 
before the corona populi, before the court). Hofmann, regarding this 
interpretation of the apostle’s words as forced, understands iva «.7.A. in 
this way: “If courage and strength had failed the apostle before the 
heathen tribunal of the metropolis of the world . . . his confident belief 
that the heathen world was called to become the church of Christ would 
have been shattered.” But the words 6? éuod . . . tAnpodopy dH distinctly 
say that the preaching had been carried out by the apostle himself, and 
not simply that the preaching to be done by others would not be hin- 
dered by him, 7. e. by his conduct.—The iva was fulfilled by the apostle’s 
speech in the zpéry axodoyia. Otto, on the contrary, asserts that the first 
arodoyia and the preaching in -Rome took place at different times, and 
that iva refers to what was to be done afterwards in Rome by the apostle. 
This is wrong, since in that case twa ought not to stand before, but after 
épprodyv.—kal éppiodyv éx otdpuatoc Aéovtoc] second proof of the help and 
presence of the Lord.—oréua Aéovrog has been very variously explained. 
The expression is not to be taken literally (Mosheim), but figuratively, and 
is to be referred to the punishment of being thrown to the lions.—Chrys- 
ostom and many after him take Nero to be the Aéwv; Pearson again takes 
Helius Ceasareanus, since Nero at’ the time had departed for Greece. 
Wahl thinks 4éo» a metaphor for tyrannus crudelis, while Wolf explains 
it to be omnis illa hostium caterva, quorum conatus in prima apologia. 
tunc facta eluserit.! All these-interpretations are inappropriate. In the 
first place, the metaphor is not in 2éwv alone, but in oréua 2éovroe (so, too, 
van Oosterzee, Hofmann); and, secondly, this expression can hardly be 
referred simply to the danger that threatened the apostle from men, but 
also to the danger prepared for him by the might of Satan, which was 
opposed to Christ. Hence the -interpretation “deadly danger” (so 
de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) is not sufficient.2, Paul escaped from 


10tto adopts an explanation to suit-his itthe apostle was delivered when he appealed 
opinion that this aroAoyia took place in Caes- to the emperor, and Festus received the 
area before Festus: “Judaism was the lion appeal. 
that panted for the apostle’s blood,” and from 2Hofmann: “ His danger was a greater one, 


CHAP. Iv. 18, 19. 273 


- the danger impending over him, unhurt in body and soul (see on iii. 11), 
escaped as a conqueror in the eyes of the Lord, and hence he says: 
epptodyv &k oT6uatog A€ovTOS. 

Ver. 18. In the assured confidence of faith, the apostle adds to éppiodnv 
the word of hope: picerai ye 6 Kbpio¢g ad ravtog épyou rovnpod, for he knows 
that the Lord—even if it be through death (ver. 6)—will bring him into 
His kingdom. [XXXII /.]. épyov rovypév is not equivalent to evil, as 
Luther translates it and Matthies explains it: from every evil circum- 
stance.” Taken in this sense, the thought would be quite irreconcilable 
with the apostle’s conviction in ver. 6. Besides, in the N. T. zovypév never 
refers to merely external affliction ; it denotes rather what is morally evil. 
Still it cannot here mean the evil work which the apostle might do 
(Chrysostom: wav dudpryza; Grotins: liberabit me, ne quid agam Chris- 
tiano, ne quid Apostolo indignum ; de Wette: “from all evil work which 
I might do through want of stedfastness, through apostasy, and the like ;” 
so, too, Beza, Heydenreich, and others). It must be interpreted of the 
wicked works of the enemies of the divine word; only with this view is 
the verb picera: appropriate, especially when combined with cose: (Wies- 
inger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle was still exposed to the 
attacks of the evil one, but he expresses the hope that the Lord would 
save him from them, so that they would do him no harm. Not, indeed, 
that he would not suffer the martyrdom he expected, but that through 
this he would come into the heavenly kingdom of the Lord, where there 
was prepared for him orégavoc tig Sixavootvyg (ver. 8).—kai cdaer ig THY 
Baotdeiav abtos THv éxovpdviov] obser cic is a pregnant construction: he will 
save me and bring me into = cdlwv ager we ei¢ (Heydenreich).—The expres- 
sion 7 BaoiAeia 4} érovpdvioc does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; but the 
idea is thoroughly apostolic and Pauline. For though Paul often calls 
Christ’s kingdom a future one, Christ is also present to him as PaovAede év 
roi¢ érovpaviow, Whose BaciAeia, therefore, is also a present one.’ The con- 
text points to this meaning here. In Phil. i. 23, Paul expresses the long- 
ing to come to Christ through death ; here he expresses the hope that the 
Lord would remove him into His kingdom é« zavric épyou movnpov.—As a 
suitable and natural utterance of awakened feeling, there follows a dox- 
ology which in this place cannot surprise us, though commonly his 
doxologies refer to God and not to Christ specially.’ 

Ver. 19. Paul sends greetings to Prisca and Aquila.—Paul had become 
acquainted with them in Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), from which they accom- 
panied him to Syria (ver. 18). When Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans they were in Rome (Rom. xvi. 13), but they were in Corinth at the 
time of his writing the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 19).— 
kal tov ’Ovnoiddpov oikov, see on i. 16. 


to lose .. . before the tribunal hiscourage in dom of the Lord, “in contrast with the earthly 
confessing Christ. That he had escaped it, dominion of the present” (Hofmann). 
he owes thanks to God’s help.” 2In Rom. xvi. 27, ix. 5, Heb. xiii. 21, the 


1There is nothing to indicate that the reference is at the very least doubtful. 
apostle is here alluding to the heavenly king- 


18 


274 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Ver. 20. "Epactog iuecvev év Kopivy] While on his third journey, the 
apostle sent forward a certain Erastus from Ephesus to Macedonia along with 
Timothy (Acts xix. 22). It can hardly be doubted that it is the same man 
who is mentioned here. It is more uncertain if the one alluded to in 
Rom. xvi. 23 is also the same (as Otto thinks); still it does favor the iden- 
tity that the latter dwelt in Corinth as 6 oixovéuocg tie méAewc, and that the 
Erastus here mentioned remained in Corinth. Meyer, however (see on 
Rom. xvi. 23), and Wiesinger think it improbable. Hofmann holds that 
the Erastus mentioned in Acts xix. 22, and the city chamberlain in Rom. 
xvi. 23, are two different men, and that the one mentioned here is identi- 
cal with the latter.—éyevve] 7. e. “he remained in Corinth, viz. when I left 
it;” the tense favors this view. Paul notices the fact because he thought 
that Timothy believed that Erastus had left Corinth with the apostle. 
Hug explains it: “ Erastus, whom I expected in Rome, remained behind 
in Corinth ;” but this would suit better with the perfect. Besides, there 
is nothing to indicate such an expectation.—Tpdgiyov dé axédurov év Midi 
aodevovvta] Trophimus, an Asiatic, accompanied Paul on his third journey, 
and went before him from Greece to Troas (Acts xx. 4). His presence in 
Jerusalem was the occasion of the tumult against Paul (Acts xxi. 29),— 
From this passage it would appear that Trophimus had wished to accom- 
pany the apostle on his journey, but had been left behind at Miletus sick. 
The apostle cannot have been in Miletus with Trophimus before the first 
imprisonment in Rome; hence the expositors who deny that Paul was 
twice imprisoned in Rome, and admit the genuineness of the epistle, are 
driven to great straits in interpreting this passage. Thus Hug, Hemsen, 
‘and Kling hold azéjcrov to be-the third person plural. Wieseler does not 
give the proper force to azéAutov, which—as de Wette rightly remarks— 
presupposes that they had been previously together in Miletus. Regard- 
ing the views of Wieseler and Otto, comp. Introduction, 23, pp. 17 ff. It 
is altogether arbitrary to read év Mediry, or to suppose that Miletus in 
Crete is meant.—The reason for speaking about Erastus and Trophimus 
appears in ver. 21; comp. vv. 9, 10. He did not mention them in ver. 10, 
because “ there he was speaking only of those who had already been with 
-him in Rome and had left him ” (Wiesinger). Hofmann thinks that Paul 
mentions them in reply to a question from Timothy regarding the two 
who might serve as witnesses for his defence; but this is mere conjecture, 
for which no good grounds can be given.! 

Ver. 21. Zroidacov xpd yeyudvoc éAeiv] see ver. 9, taxéoc. Even if po 
xeiavog is to be connected with rayéwc, it does not follow that the epistle 
was written just before winter; comp. Introd. 3 3. Xeyudév may indeed 
mean the “ winter-storm ” (Wieseler), but it is more natural here to under- 
stand it of the season of the year (Wiesinger). Timothy is to come to the 


1Hofmann regards them as suitable wit- present in Corinth on the occasion mentioned 
nesses for the defence, assuming that- the in Acts xviii. 12, and Trophimus when Paul 
charge against the apostle rested on this, was made a prisoner at Jerusalera. Both 


that his preaching of the gospel was contrary might therefore testify that Paul was not to 
to the constitution of the state. Erastus was blame for these tumults. 


NOTES. 275 


apostle before winter, that the winter might not prevent him from coming 
soon.—Finally, Paul sent greetings from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and 
Claudia, who are mentioned only here and from all the Christians in 
Rome. These are named specially, not as the apostle’s cbvepyo, but proba- 
bly because they were personally acquainted with Timothy. Linus is 
probably the one whom the Fathers name as the first bishop of Rome. 
Ver. 22. Benediction. This is peculiar in its nature. Only at the end 
of the First Epistle to tne Corinthians do we find, as here, a double bene- 
diction, and there it runs differently. For 6 «ipuc . . . and 7 yap. . 
the form elsewhere is always 4 ydpic tov Kvpiov.—pera Tod mvebuatd¢ cov] 
comp. Gal. vi. 18; Philem. 25.—j xapc¢ we? duov] comp. 1 Tim. vi. 22. 


Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XOXO Vive —s- 


(a) The view of Huther with respect to dazapripoya k.7.A. seems to be the 
correct one—namely, that «ai before éx@dvecav means both, and that the true ren- 
dering is, I adjure thee in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus, both by His 
appearance and His kingdom. There is no satisfactory ground of objection to this 
view, and it avoids the difficulty of joining the simple accusative after a verb of 
swearing in a parallelism with the év@zvov construction. The allusion to the appear- 
ance and kingdom, as well as to the dead and living—that is, those who at the time 
of the judgment (the Parousia) shall have already died and those who shall then 
be still alive—is an indication (additional to the others already noticed in the two 
Epp. to Timothy) of the impressiveness of the thought of the Parousia to the 
Apostle’s mind. It had an emphasis, and living power, to his apprehension such 
as to Christians in our own day it does not have, and such as may,—not improbably, 
to say the least,—find its explanation in the thought that it was near. The “king- 
dom,” cannot here have the same sense, precisely as in 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff., but must 
refer to that consummated and victorious state of things which is introduced by 
the Parousia.—(b) The explanation given of érior73. by Huther, with whom 
de Wette, Holtzmann and some others substantially agree, has in its favor the 
more common meaning of the verb. It does not seem perfectly clear that it has 
the precise sense be instant, in a sentence of this character. Yet the supply of 
a dative from the preceding verb «#pvsov is not difficult, and, with such a supply 
there can be little doubt that the verb may mean give attention to, fix the mind upon, 
be attentive to. On the other hand the use of the mere verb draw near, as equiva- 
lent to draw near to men with the word, in such a series of exhortations as we find 
here, must be regarded as in a high degree improbable. The question is one 
which cannot be decided confidently in favor of either meaning as against the 
other, but the objection to the rendering be instant of R. V., A. V., (so in substance, 
if not exactly, many commentators including EIl., Alf., van Oost., Fairb., Plumptre 
and others), is, on the whole, less serious than that which lies against Huther’s 
rendering —Plumptre explains edcaipw¢ axaipo¢ as meaning “ with or without what 
seems to men a special opportunity.” Not improbably, however, there is a some- 
what stronger force in the latter word, such that it means “even when men think 
it unseasonable.” That the action of the preacher, in this matter, is not to be 
carried beyond due limits is indicated by the reasonableness which directs in the 


276 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


application of all Christian rules of such a character, and is even suggested by 
Matt. vii. 6—(c) The future referred to in éorac kacpdc (ver. 3), in connection with 
similar passages already noticed, is best explained as the time of development of 
error previous to the Parousia, which, in its beginnings and foreshadowings, gave 
signs of its coming even at the date of the latter. It is evident, in all these pas- 
sages, that Paul describes the future errors in terms corresponding very nearly to 
those in which he sets forth the false doctrines of the present. His conception 
seems to be only that of a further and natural growth in the same line. Timothy 
is to be faithful and earnest in his work, in order that the growth may be arrested, 
or its injurious consequences may be averted, as far as possible. And this is 
especially urged upon him, because the Apostle now feels that his own time for 
working draws near to its end.—(d) The subject of avéfovra is probably persons in 
the church, as it is of such persons that the writer speaks in the several passages 
where the healthful teaching and its opposite are alluded to. The errors are 
those of professed Christians, which, starting from a Jewish origin, developed 
under the influence of Greek or Oriental thought intermingling with Judaistic 
ideas. The use of the article with mvGovc in ver. 4 can hardly be satisfactorily 
accounted for, except as some connection is given to these fables with those men- 
tioned in 1 Tim. i. 4 and elsewhere.—(e) The repetition of the word kaxoradyjoov 
(ver. 5) in this new exhortation to Timothy to fulfill the duties of his ministry, in 
contrast to a yielding to errors or the erroneous teachers, shows how important an 
element in the life before him the Apostle thought such hardship and suffering 
would be, and how essential the stedfast enduring of such evil, in the times then 
present and to come, was to his apprehension. The word evangelist, as here used, 
refers to Timothy’s work as a preacher going about from place to place in his 
missionary labors. In a similar sense, all Paul’s assistants, and even Paul him- 
self, though an Apostle, had been evangelists from the beginning. 7Axpogépycov 
(ver. 5) has the sense of fulfill, rather than make full proof of (omnem in partem 
manisterio satisfacio, Grimm, Lex. N. T.). Alf. says, “fill up in every point, leaving 
nothing undone in.”—(f) The contrast between the Apostle’s expression in Phil. 
ii. 17 and that in ver. 6 of this chapter is noticeable. There, he merely supposes 
the case, & kai orévdoua, saying that he will rejoice if the result of his trial 
should even prove to be death, but adding, immediately afterwards, his strong 
hope in the Lord that it will not be so. Here, on the other hand, he realizes the 
certainty of the future, and speaks of himself as if already dying or being offered. 
‘His work is done, and the reward will be given at the day of the appearing. The 
cause is to be committed to his younger associates, who should keep the command- 
ment and fulfill the ministry until that appearing (1 Tim. i. 14). The word avaav-- 
ow, which is here used in the clause following oévdouai, is also found, in the 
verbal form, in Phil. i. 23. It is interesting to observe, in connection with this 
word, that while the Apostle, at the time when there was an uncertainty as to his 
fate, and a possibility, yet only a possibility, that he might be put to death, 
declares that he has a desire to depart, and that it is far better. He now declares, 
when the certainty has come, his satisfaction in review of the past, and his 
undoubting confidence for the future—(g) d:xavoobyy¢ of ver. 8 is best taken, as 
Huther takes it, as gen. of apposition. So also Holtzm., and others. Ell., Plumptre, 
and others, prefer to make it a sort of gen. possess. Ell. places at the foundation 
an objective notion, “the crown for which (so to speak) dcx. has a claim,” but says 
it is “in fact a sort of proleptic gen. possess.” Alf., with something of the same 


NOTES. DAE i | 


objective idea perhaps, says “the bestowal of which is conditional on the substan- 
tiation and recognition of righteousness.” dckacoovvy has here, apparently (as gen. 
appos.), the ordinary, not the peculiar Pauline (forensic) sense. (So Grimm, de W., 
and others.) 


XXXII. Vv. 9-22. 


(a) The request made in ver.-9 connects itself, in some sense, with what is said 
in vy. 6-8—thus tayéw¢e may be partly, or possibly wholly, accounted for. But 
the main connection is with ver. 10. The thought turns here, at the close of the 
epistle, to more personal matters, as was natural in view of the Apostle’s own con- 
dition and his friendly relations with Timothy. The verb ovovddew carries with 
it the idea of earnest endeavor, as well as of haste (ovevdev). Timothy is thus 
urged to make every effort to hasten his departure from Ephesus, and his arrival 
at Rome. In ver. 21, the limit of time is more definitely indicated, before winter. 
As the winter season would begin as early as November, and about three or four 
months must be allowed for the passing of the letter from Rome to Ephesus, for 
Timothy’s necessary preparations, and for the journey from Ephesus to Rome, the 
date of the Epistle must be placed as early in the year as June or July. Vv. 6-8, 
therefore, cannot be understood as meaning that the Apostle regarded his death 
as certainly to take place in the most immediate future. He must have thought 
that his life might be spared for a few months, but he evidently looked for the 
end—as he did not in Phil. i. ii—as a thing to be confidently anticipated, and 
that at an early time.—(b) Of the persons here mentioned, Demas, Luke, Mark and 
Tychicus are alluded to in Col., and the first three of them in Philem. The desertion 
of Demas had evidently occurred since the date of those letters, and apparently 
after the arrival of Paul in Rome, on his second visit to that city. Whether 
Demas had abandoned the Christian faith is not distinctly stated. It is stated, 
however, that he had forsaken the Apostle (left him in the lurch, Huther) because 
he loved the present aiév, An unchristian motive for his action is, therefore, 
affirmed.—(c) The true reading in ver. 14, as proved by the weight of manuscript 
evidence, is avodéoe. The statement is, accordingly, that the Lord will reward 
him according to his works, and all questions as to the propriety or probability of 
an expression of a desire on Paul’s part that he should be thus rewarded are set 
aside by the fact that no such desire is expressed—(d) The use of the word 
éykatéAecrov in ver. 16 fayors the view that the same word in ver. 10 does not 
imply an absolute defection from the faith. The argument from this verse is not 
ilecisive, however, for the word may be modified as to its force, in each case, by 
the sentence in which it stands. In the present case, Paul prays that their 
abandoning him may not be laid by God to the charge of the persons alluded to. 
The language is milder than that used respecting Alexander, even if the reading 
arodacet be the right one in the verse which refers to him, and certainly so, if 
aroday is there the correct text.—(e) The “ first defence,” which is mentioned in 
ver. 16, is supposed by some of the best recent commentators who think that Paul 
was twice in Rome, to have been connected with a first hearing or trial within the 
time of the second imprisonment. This view is favored by the fact that, during the 
period of the first imprisonment, Timothy had been with Paul in Rome previous 
to the date of the Ep. to the Philippians, and would scarcely need information as 
to what happened at or near that date. The general indications of that Epistle 
would seem, also, to suggest such a condition of things, and such prospects as to 


278 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


the issue of the trial, as to make it unlikely that all his friends would desert him 
at that time. If the reference is, thus, to the time of the second imprisonment, 
the iva clause of ver. 17 must refer to his defence, and not to subsequent mission- 
ary labors, and this is indicated, also, by the insertion of this clause between the 
évedvvauwoe and the éppiodtyv clause, both of which relate to the defence or trial. 
The lion is probably to be understood as meaning either the devil, as the power 
that brought the danger upon him and thereby a temptation to sin, or Nero, as 
the one before whose tribunal he stood. The expression may, however, simply 
denote “deadly danger”—a figurative way of setting forth this idea. This seems 
less probable. Ver. 18 may, perhaps, be regarded as favoring the reference of 
déovtoc to Satan. Evidently we must conclude from vy. 6-8, that the Apostle 
does not mean by ver. 18 deliverance from imprisonment or death—(/f) That 
6 Kvptocg of ver. 18 refers to Christ is made clear by the words t7v BactAciav avTou, 
and, if so, the verse contains a doxology to Christ. 


CHAP. I. 279 


Habiov tod dxosréhov 4 mpos Tiroy éxtotody. 


In A, al. the inscription begins with dpyeraw; in DE FG it runs simply po¢ 
Titov, . 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. For Iyoot Xporoi, Buttm. and Tisch. 7, following A, al., adopted 
Xp.orov "Ijoov; but the majority of the most important Mss. (DY EFG HI K 
Ly) support the Ree. (Lachm. Tisch. 8)—Ver. 4. xapu¢ kai eipyjvy] So Scholz, 
Tisch., following C* D E F G J x 73, al., Syr. Copt. Chrys. Aug. al—Lachm. 
and Buttm. retained the usual reading: ydpic, éAeo¢, eipyvy; it is found in A C** 
K L, etc., but seems nevertheless to be a correction from the analogy of 1 Tim. i. 2; 
2 Tim. i. 2—Tittmann’s reading: yapic, éAeoc, kai eipfvn, is quite arbitrary —Mat- 
thaie : é2e0c nullus meorum omittit, nec ex quinque iis, quos postea consului. Reiche 
decided for the reading of Tisch.—a? kvpiov "Ijoov Xpiorov] For this Lachm. 
Buttm. Tisch. read xa? Xpiorod ’Ijoov, on the authority of A C D*al., Vulg. 
Copt. Arm. Theodoret, ete——Ver. 5. So far as internal evidence goes, we cannot 
decide whether the Rec. xaréAurov or the reading axéAvrov (Lachm. Tisch.) is the 
original one; both may be corrections, the latter on the analogy of 2 Tim. iv. 20, 
the former on the analogy of Acts xviii. 19, xxiv. 27. Hofmann prefers KaraAei- 
mew, because it means: “leaving some one behind in going away;” but the sim- 
ple verb is in no way unsuitable in the passage. The external evidence (A C D* 
F G, al., Or. Basil. ms.) is in favor of arédurov, It is uncertain, too, whether the 
aor. amédutov (Rec. supported by D E K x, al. Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8) 
or the imperf. azéAecto (A CF G J L, al, Tisch. 7) is the original reading. 
Hofmann prefers the imperf. “because it was part of the purpose for which Paul 
at that time left Titus behind;” but this would not prevent the apostle from 
writing the aor.—The authorities waver between the middle éxdcopbaon (Rec. 
Tisch.) and the act. éridcopAGoy¢ (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm.). Since in classic Greek 
the middle is more current than the active, it may be supposed that the middle 
was a correction. It can hardly be supposed that the copyists did not know the 
middle form (Hofmann).—Ver. 10. In A C J x, many cursives, etc., kai is want- 
ing between 70A20i and avurtéraxrol, for which reason it was omitted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8. Tisch. 7 retained it, on the authority of DEFGKL, several 
cursives, etc. The «ai was perhaps added to be in accordance with classical 
usage.—In several mss. (F G 67* 73, al.), as well as in some versions, Oecum. 
Hilar., a kai was inserted after avuréraxtot.—Ver. 15. The pév following tévta 
in the Rec. is to be deleted, on the authority of A C D* E* F G x 17, al., Vulg. 
It. Or. Tert. ete—For pewacpuévorc, weuraupévore is found in A C K L y, many 
cursives, etc., and was adopted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. (see Winer, p. 84 
[E. T. p. 88]). D* has ueneavuévorg. 


280 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1+4, see Note XX XIII., pages 290-292.] Iavro¢ dovAo¢ 
6c00] [XX XIII a.] This designation, which indicates generally the official . 
position (Wiesinger: “dovAoc Ocov here in the same sense as in Acts xvi. 
17, Rev. 1. 1, xv. 3, etc., not as in 1 Pet. ii. 16, Rev. vii. 3,” etc.), is not 
usually found in the inscriptions of the Pauline Epistles. In the Epistle 
of James we have: Ocov kai xupiov "I. Xp. dovaoc, and in writing to the 
Romans and Philippians Paul says dovdoc I. Xp.—arédororoc dé 'I. Xp.] dé 
indicates here not so much a contrast (as Mack thinks) as a further defini- 
tion (Matthies: a more distinct description); comp. Jude 1. With this 
double designation comp. Rom. i. 1: dovsog "I. Xp., kAnri¢g ardorokoc.—kara 
miotw éxAext@v Ozov] kaTd is explained by Matthies to mean: “ according 
to faith, so that the apostleship is described in its normal state, in its 
evangelic character; ”’ but it is altogether opposed to the apostolic spirit 
to make appeal on behalf of the apostleship to its harmony with the faith 
of the elect. Kara rather expresses here the general relation of reference 
to something: “in regard to faith ;” the more precise definition must be 
supplied. This, however, can be nothing else than that which in Rom. i. 
5 is expressed by elc¢ (sie braxoyy micrewc év aor tT. éOvecw). It is on ac- 
count of the rioric éxA. Ocov that he is a dovA. Ocod and azxdéor. Xp., and to 
this his office is related, see 2 Tim. i-1. This general relation is limited 
too precisely by the common exposition: “for producing faith,” ete. 
Hofmann thinks the apostle uses xara mor. éxA. to describe faith as that 
which is presupposed in his apostleship, as that without which he would 
not be an apostle; but, on the one hand, we should in that case have had 
vou; and, on the other hand, caré does not express a presupposition or 
condition.—The expression éxAexrol Oeod is taken by de Wette in a pro- 
leptic sense, to mean those who, by the free counsel of God, are predesti- 
nated. to faith; and xard riotw éxA. O., according to him, declares the 
faith of these elect to be the aim of the apostolic office. Wiesinger, on 
the contrary, thinks the expression é«Aexroi Ocov quite abstract, leaving it 
uncertain “whether the «Ajo has already taken place in their case or 
not;” but he agrees with de Wette in taking the éxAexroi to be the object 
of the apostolic labors, so that the meaning is: in order to produce or 
further faith in the elect. But in the’N. T. the expression éAexrod Oeod is 
always used of those who have already become believers, never of those 
who have not yet received the xAjowe. Since it cannot be said that the - 
purpose of the apostolic office is to produce faith in the éxAexroé (Plitt: 
“that the elect may believe ”’), who as such already possess faith, nor that 
it is to further their faith, riotw éxdAexrov must be taken as one thought, 
the genitive serving to define more precisely the faith to which Paul’s 
apostolic office is dedicated. We have therefore here a contrast between 
the true faith and the false rior, of which the heretics boasted —x«ai éri- 


1There is no doubt that in classic Greek  .. . dAdAnoGe, kara Ayjida. But the relation 
kara sometimes denotes the aim of exertion; here is quite different, being active. Kara 
see Ktihner, 2 607.—Herod. ii. 152: xara thy  aiotw would therefore mean “in order to 
Aninv exmAdoavtes. Thucydides, vi. 31: cara believe,” which would give no sense. 
Ocav Heev. Odyssey, iii. 106: 7 Te Kata mpg 


CHAP. I. 1, 2. 281 


yrwoy dAnOeiac tHe Kat’ evoéBecav] In genuine faith the knowledge of the 
truth is a substantial element; and Paul here lays stress on this element 
to point the contrast with the heretics. The éxiyvwou is the subjective 
aspect, as the aAfea is the objective—rjc Kar’ evoéBecav [XXXII 6.] 
serves to define 4a4/0ea more precisely! De Wette, Wiesinger, van 
Oosterzee, Plitt interpret 7 «ar evoéBecav: “leading to holiness,” thus, in- 
deed, naming a right element in truth, but one rather indicated than 
expressed by xara; it is merely said that here a truth is under discussion 
which is in nature akin to evoéBera. Hofmann translates it “piously,” 
asserting that kar’ evoéBevav without the article stands for an adjective ; 
but had Paul used the clause as an adjective, he would certainly have 
written: tic Kar’ eboéBecav aAnbeiac (as in Rom. ix. 11: 7 kar’ éxhoyny mpdbe- 
cic). Besides, the translation “ piously” is not sufficiently clear. 

Ver. 2. ’En’ tdridc Cofe aiwviov] [X XXIII c¢.] ew éarids, “in hope” 
(comp. Rom. iv. 18, viii. 21; 1 Cor. ix. 10). It is not to be taken with 
éixiyvwoic aAnbetac (“ the knowledge of the truth which gives hope of an 
eternal life,’ Heydenreich, but with hesitation; Wiesinger: CIS a 
knowledge whose content is that a#Hea, and whose ground and condi- 
tion is the hope of eternal life, by which hope it is supported and 
guided ”), nor is it to be taken with evaéBea (“a holiness the possessor of 
which is justified in hoping for eternal life,” which Heydenreich likewise 
considers possible), nor with r7¢ kar’ ebvoéBecav (Matthies: “ truth and holi- 
ness in their inner relationship are founded evangelically on the hope of 
eternal life”), nor even with the two ideas closely connected: riorw and 
ériypowow ad. (so Plitt: “the ior and the éxiyvwore rest on the éAmic”’); 
but it is to be joined with azdorodog x.7.A. 7Paul by this declares that the e 
tAric Cwmc alwviov is the basis on which he stands as an ardotodocg Incov 
Xpiorod xara riotw «7.42 Van Oosterzee: “ Paul in ver. 4 says he fulfills 
his task with or in hope of eternal life ” (so, too, Hofmann).—The believer, 
it is true, possesses the Cw aidvo¢ in the present ; but its perfection will 
only be granted to him in the future (comp. Col. iii. 8,4); here it 
is to be considered as a future blessing, which is indicated by é7’ 
Axidt.—hv ixnyyeidato 6 apevrdnc Ode xpd yxpdvov aiwviwv] [XX XIII d.| av 
relates to Cofc aiwviov, and not, as some expositors (Flatt, Mack, and 
others) think, to aA7@eva.—érnyyeidato, Viz. dua Tov TpopyT@v, COM). Rom. i. 
2—6 apevdjc cdc] This epithet occurs only here; aipevdfe is equivalent to 
rioréc, danOje in regard to the divine promises, comp. Heb. vi. 18: adivarov 
pevoacbar Oedv; 1 Cor. i. 9; Rom. iii. 4—rpd ypdvev aiwvior here is not 
equivalent in meaning to xpd KkataBorqje xéowov or similar expressions ; for 
in that case éxyyye/Aaro must have meant promittere decrevit, or the like, 
as Chrysostom expounds it: dvefev rabta podpioto, which is impossible. 
It is equivalent to ax aidvoc, Luke i. 70: “before eternity, 2. e. before the 


1As Chrysostom says: éott yap aAj@era  amdatodos x.7.A., the objection of Wiesinger 
mpayuatwv, add’ ov kat’ evocBerav, oiov 70 is overcome, viz. that in connecting it with 
eidévar Ta yewpytKa, TO cidevar TEXVAaS, AANOHS anéatodos there should be a dé or something 
éotiv eidévau’ GAN’ avy Kat’ evo€Beray y adyPera. similar to indicate the co-ordinate position 
If ém’ édmide be in this way connect-d with — of émi and xara. 


282 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


earliest times’ (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann), comp. 2 Tim. 
i. 9.1 De Wette rightly remarks that apparently the opposite is declared 
IN pvothpiov ypdvowe aiwviow cearynuévov, Rom. xvi. 25. 

Ver. 3. [XXXII e.] "Egavépwce dé xaipoic idiowe tov Adyov avtow] épavépwoe 
forms an antithesis to éryyyeiAato. True, the promise is a revelation, but 
only a revelation in which the point under consideration still remains 
hidden. The object of é¢avépwoe is not the same as that to which éryy. 
relates, viz. 7v, i.e. T7v Conv aidvov; Beza: quam promiserat Deus 
manifestam autem fecit ... The object is rév Adyov aitov, which is not 
to be taken as in apposition to gv (or as Heinrichs even thinks, to éA7zida 
Cw), though it is strange that égav. should begin a new sentence. This 
is one of the cases where—as Buttmann, p. 328 [E. T. 383], remarks—a 
relative sentence passes almost imperceptibly into a principal sentence, 
without such continuation changing the actual principal sentence into 
one subordinate.—rov Adyov avrov] is, of course, not a name for Christ 
(scholiasts in Matthaei), but the gospel, which contains the azoxaivyuc 
pvornpiov, Rom. xvi. 26, or, as is said here, ry Came aiwviov.A—Kaipoic idiow] 
comp. 1 Tim. ii. 6. How this ¢avépwore of the divine word took place, is 
told in the next words: év kypbyyate 6 ériarebOny éyo] Kfipvyua (see 2 Tim. 
iv. 17) is not quite “the general preaching of the gospel by the apostles ”’ 
(Matthies, Wiesinger), the thought being limited by the words following; 
kpvyua is to be taken as forming one thought with what follows: ‘“ the 
preaching entrusted to me.” Paul had some reason for describing his 
preaching as the means by which this revelation was made, since he recog- 
nized the depth of the divine decree as no other apostle had recognized it, 
and by him it was proclaimed “to all peoples” (see 2 Tim. iv. 17).—é 
éxtotevOnv éy] see 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Tim. i. 11—To 
define and emphasize the thought that the xjpvyya was not according to 
his own pleasure, Paul adds: kar’ éxitayyv tov cwrhpoc mudv Oeov] comp. 1 
Tim. i. 1. Hofmann construes differently, connecting together xara riorw 
and éx’ éAridc as well as év «npiyuart, and then joining kar’ éxirayqy im- 
mediately with axéorodoc. But this construction not only makes rév Adéyov 
airov (which, according to Hofmann, is in apposition to #v) quite super- 
fluous, but separates ideas closely attached to each other, «#pvyua and 
Adyoc, éxcorebOyv and kar’ éxitayhy. 

Ver. 4. Titw yrytiy téxvy Kata Kowny riotw] [XXXII fj On yracio réxve, 
see 1 Tim. i. 2. Kara xouy riorw gives the point of view from which Titus ~ 
can be considered the genuine son of the apostle. Beza: 7. e. fidei 
respectu qua quidem et Paulo patri et Tito filio communis erat. There 
is nothing to indicate that in using xow#v Paul was thinking of an origi- 
nal difference between them, he being a Jewish Christian, Titus a Gentile 


1Calvin rightly says: hie, quia de promis- the apostle changes its object, or rather its 
sione tractat, non omnia saecula compre- name; eternal life is in its appearance still 
hendit, ut nos addueat extra mundi creatio- something future, revealed only as Adyos. 
nem, sed docet, multa saecula praeteriisse, ex Hence, too, it is plain that the gw aidvios is 
quo salus fuit promissa. here to be regarded as the content of this 


2 Wiesinger rightly: “Any one can see why Aoyos in specie.” 


CHAP. I. 3-6. 283 


Christian.—ydpic [éAeoc], eipyvy «.t.A.] see on 1 Tim. i. 2—The designation 
appended to Xpiorov, viz. tov owrypoc ijuov, is peculiar to this epistle. 
[XX XIII, g.] 

Ver. 5. [On Vv. 5-9, see Note XXXIV., pages 292, 293.] The epistle be- 
gins by the apostle reminding Titus of the commission already given him 
by word of mouth. [XXXIV a.]—roirov yapw arédirov oe tv Kpgry] 
[XXXIV b.] Regarding the time when this happened, see the Introduc- 
tion ; as to the reading, see the critical remarks.—iva ra Aeirovta éridiop- 
Goon] ta Agixrovra: quae ego per temporis brevitatem non potui coram 
expedire (Bengel).—ézidvop§éon¢ | The preposition ézi does not serve here 
to strengthen the meaning (~omni cura corrigere, Wahl) but conveys 
the notion of something additional: “ still further bring into order.’—ra 
Aeixovta| means “ that which is wanting,” 7. e. here that which was want- 
ing for the complete organization of the church. The apostle himself 
had already done something, but in many respects the churches were not 
organized as they ought to be; presbyters had still to be appointed to 
gather single believers into a firmly-established church. This Titus was 
now to do,! as the next words say: kai Kataotjonc Kata TéAW mpeaButépove. 
[XXXIV c.]—xara 76Av] For the expression, comp. Luke viii. 1; Acts xv. 
21, xx. 23; and for the fact, Acts xiv. 23. Baur wrongly assumes that 
each méAic was to receive only one presbyter, see Meyer on Acts xiv. 23.— 
ac éy oo duetazaunv] “ relates both to the fact and to the manner of it, 
the latter being set forth more fully in mentioning the qualities of those 
to be chosen” (de Wette). Hofmann, without sufficient ground, wishes 
mpecButépove to be regarded not as the object proper, but as something 
predicated of the object, which object is found by the words ei ri «.7.2. 
This view is refuted by the addition of kata réAuw 

Ver. 6. Ei tic éotiv] [XXXIV d.] This form is not, as Heinrichs and 
Heydenreich think, selected to express a doubt whether such men could 
be found among the corrupt Cretans. The meaning is rather : “ only such 
an one as.” —avéyxAntoc] see 1 Tim. ili. 10; averxiAnrroc is used in 1 Tim. iii. 
2. The objection which de Wette raises on the ground that Titus is in 
the first place to have regard to external blamelessness, has been proved 
by Wiesinger to have no foundation whatever.—j.ac yuv. avip] see 1 Tim. 
ili. 2—réxva Eywv tiora] comp. 1 Tim. ii. 4, 5; x74, in contrast to those 
that were not Christian, or were Christian only in name.—py7 év Katnyopia 
dowriac] “qui non sunt obnoxii crimini luxus” (Wolf); dowria is a de- 
bauched, sensual mode of life (1 Pet. iv. 4; Eph. v. 18).2—# avuréraxra] 
see 1 Tim. iii. 5. Comp. the picture of the sons of Eli in 1 Sam. ii. 12 ff. 
As the bishop is to be an example to the church, his own house must be 
well conducted. 


1Theod. y. Mops. : 0 yap THs evoeBeias Adyos 
mapededoTo tact map’ avTov, éAcimeTo SE oiKko- 
VOMATAL TA KATA TOUS TEMLOTEUKOTAaS Kai Eis 
appoviav avTo’s KaTagTHoaL Tails exKAnoLagTi= 
Kats dvatuTwocect. 

2Hofmann rightly remarks, that (accord- 
ing to the apostle’s injunction) “Titus was to 


appoint the superintendents according to his 
own choice, and was not to cause them to be 
elected by the Christians who were still to be 
organized into a community.” 

3Chrysostom: ovx cite wh atA@s aowrTos, 
GAAa unde StaBoAnv Exery ToravTHY, myNdE Tov: 
pas civar dd€éns. 


284 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


Ver. 7. Aci yap] The statements of ver. 6 are now confirmed by alluding 
to the higher moral necessity ; “ det is the emphatic word” (Wiesinger).— 
Tov imiok. avéykAytov elvac] avéykA. is resumed from ver. 6, that the thought 
may be further developed. It is to be noted that the name ézicxoroc 
appears here; it is given to the presbyter as superintendent of the church. 
As such “he must not be liable to any reproach, if he is to guide the 
church ” (Wiesinger).—o¢ @eov oixovduoy] is added to give the reason for 
that higher necessity of the avéyx. eivac; Heydenreich wrongly turns it to 
mean simply that he must know how to superintend his house well.— 
“as,” 1. e. “ since he is.” —Oeov oixovéduoc is the bishop in so far as there 
is committed to him by God authority in the éxxAyoia as the olxoc Ocov (1 
Tim. iii. 15). Mack is not wrong in proving from this expression that the 
éxioxorot are not merely “ ministers and plenipotentiaries of the church.” 
Eyen if they are elected by the church, they bear their office as divine, 
not exercising it according to the changing pleasure of those by whom 
they are elected, but according to the will of God.—wy aidddy] occurs only 
here and in 2 Pet. ii. 10. It is compounded of airéc and ddéw, and 
synonymous with airdpeokoe (2 Tim. iii. 2: giAavroc), “who in everything 
behaves arrogantly and regardlessly as seems good in his own eyes; ” 
Luther: “ willful.”—py dpyidov] ar. rey. “passionate;” oi dpyitor rayéwc 
opyiCovrat.—uy mapowov] see 1 Tim. iii. 3.—p) rAgKT rv] see also 1 Tim. iii. 
3.— pi aicypoxepd7| see 1 Tim. iii. 8; perhaps with special reference to the 
opportunities which the bishop had in his office of acquiring gain.—These 
five negative qualifications are opposed to arrogance, anger, and avarice ; 
several positive qualifications follow. 

Ver. 8. ’AAAG giAdEevov] see 1 Tim. iii. 2.—Adyabov] az. Aey. (the oppo- 
site in 2 Tim. iii. 8), loving either the good or what is good. Chrysostom 
is inaccurate: 7a abtob rdvra Toic Seopévore rpoiéuevoc ; and Luther : “kindly.” 
—oappova] see 1 Tim. iii. 2—dixaiov, dcvov] These two ideas are frequently 
placed together. '—dixawoc is one who does no wrong to his neighbor; 
écvo¢ is one Who keeps himself free from that which stains him in the 
éyes of God; synonymous with dxaxoc, ayiavroc, Heb. vii. 26.—éyxparq] ar. 
dey? There is no ground for limiting the word to the relation of the 
sexes; besides, éyxpdreca and éyxparevesOac in the N. T. hardly convey any- 
thing more than the general idea of self-control. -The three last qualifica- 
tions are closely related to each other, describing the conduct of the man 
towards his neighbor, towards God, towards himself; comp. ii. 12.—The 
positive qualifications in this verse are not direct antitheses to the negative 
qualifications in the preceding verse; still there is a certain antithesis of 
cognate ideas. This is the case with 7 avfady and gcAdFevov, diAdyabov ; with 
[a opyihov, ui) mapowvov, wy TAHKTHY, ANA cHdpova; pH aicxpoKepd7 and dikatov, 
éo.ov, éyxpat7. Still these epithets, though corresponding to one another, 
are not quite the same in the extent of their application. 


ie 


1Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 24; Plato Hkovra mpatrwy Sika’ av mpartor, mepi Se 
(Gorg. 507 B) this distinguishes between Oeovs dara. 
them: Kai py mepi pév avOpwrous Ta mpoo- 2Chrysostom: tov ma@ous Kparovvta, Tov Kat 


CHAP. I. 7—9. 285 


Ver. 9. To these requisites, somewhat general in nature, Paul adds 
another with special bearing on the official duties of a bishop: avreyéuevov 
Tov Kata THY didayiv TLoTOU Aé6yov] The exposition given by most of the com- 
pound idea rot . . . Adyouv is inaccurate and confused. Heydenreich 
divides the expression into two parts: (1) 6 mortd¢ Adyoc, “the true doc- 
trine of the gospel;” and (2) 6 Adyoc kata tiv diayhv, “the doctrine in 
which the bishop is instructed,’ and gives the following translation : 
“holding firmly, as instructed, by the word which is certain (to reliable 
doctrine).” But manifestly this translation arbitrarily inverts the mean- 
ing. The words xara tHv didayyv are not dependent on orev, but on 
Adyov, defined by microv, so that rod x. 7. did. ricTod Ady. is equivalent to row 
TloTov Adyov, Tov Kata THY diWayxHv. ‘O rLoTd¢ Adyoc does not occur elsewhere in 
our epistles, but there is no doubt that Paul means thereby the pure, whole- 
some word (Adyor tytaivovrec, 1 Tim. vi. 8; of Adyou tHe Trictewc, 1 Tim. iv. 6) 
of the gospel, in contrast,to the false doctrine of the heretics. He uses 
the epithet mioré¢ because it is not treacherous, it can be relied on: “the 
sure, reliable word.” 'This sure word is defined more precisely by kara ry 
didaynv] didaxg is not active (Luther: “that which can teach ”), but means, 
as it often does in the N. T., “doctrine.” Here it denotes “the Christian 
doctrine,” which is none other than that preached by Christ Himself and 
by His apostles; so Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Hofmann. It is less 
appropriate to explain didaxyz to be “the instruction imparted” (so van 
Oosterzee, and formerly in this commentary);! comp. 1 Tim. iv. 6; 2 
Thess. ii. 15.—avréyeofa (in Matt. vi. 24, synonymous with ayarav, opposed 
to xaragpoveiv ; used in a similar sense, 1 Thess. v. 14) occurs often in 
Polybius (see Raphelius on the passage) in the sense of: adhaerere, 
studiosum esse (avréyeobar tic aAnfeiac). Here, too, it has this meaning, as 
in Phil. 1.16: éwéyew ; 2 Thess. ii. 15: xpareiv, “adhere to.” Luther: “he 
holds by the word.”—Heydenreich rightly remarks that this does not 
indicate the zeal the teacher was to show in speaking of divine doctrine, 
but his own internal adherence, etc.—iva «.r.A.] This adherence to the 
word is necessary for the bishop that he may discharge the duties of his 
office. It is further defined more precisely in two ways: iva dvvatic 7 
kai... kai: “both ...and.” The first is: wapaxareiv év rH didackadia TH 
by:atvoton, Which refers to believers. capaxaieiv] encourage, exhort ; viz. to 
remain in the way on which they have entered, and to advance ever 
further in it, ¢v being here instrumental: “through, by means of.” Mat- 
thies is incorrect : “to edify in sound doctrine; ” comp. 1 Thess. iv. 18— 
7 didack. 4 bycaw.] see 1 Tim. i. 10.—The second is: rove avriAéyovrac éhéyxerv | 
“ By correction and reproof to refute those who contradict” (viz. the 
pure doctrine of the gospel), by which are meant the heretics.—Even 
in classic Greek, the two conceptions “refute” and “reprove” are some- 


YAOTTYS, Kal xXELpos, Kal OPOaduav aKxodaoTwr" 815; ot Kata THY TapadkAnoty Adyor, and accord- 
TOUTO yap éoTiv éyxpatera, TS pySevi VToaVpec- ing to this 0 kata thy ddaxqv Adyos would be 
Oar wader. ; the word whose content is doctrine. But the 

1Several expositors cite, in explanation of attribute moros makes this explanation 


this expression, the passage from Polyb. p. unsuitable. 


286 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


times combined in ééyyew ; see Pape, s.v.—This verse leads on to further 
description of the heretics. 

Ver. 10. [On Vv. 10-16, see Note XX XV., pages 293, 294.] Eiol yap] yap 
shows that this verse serves to explain the preceding words. [XXXV a.]— 
roadoi [kai] avurdraxror] If xai be read, the phrase should be explained by 
the usage common in Greek of joining 7020 with an adjective following 
it (see Matthiae, 2 44, 4, p. 830), and avuréraxro taken as an adjective. If 
kai be omitted, avuréraxroe may be taken as a substantive. The heretics 
are so named because they set themselves in opposition to the gospel and 
refuse obedience to it; the word is found also in 1 Tim. i. 9; Tit.i. 6.— 
The heretics are further styled yaraiédoyor] see 1 Tim. i. 6, and ¢pevardrac 
(az. dey.; the verb in Gal. vi. 3), “ misleaders,’ almost synonymous with 
yonrec, 2 Tim. iii. 18.—pddcora ot éx mepitouqce] A name for the Jewish- 
Christians, as in Gal. ii. 12.—yd/.ora indicates that the preachers of heresy 
in Crete were chiefly Jewish Christians, but that they had also found fol- 
lowers among the Gentile Christians. These appended words do not com- 
pel us to take avurdéraxro: as the predicate, and the Christians of Crete as 
the unexpressed subject of ciciv (in opposition to Hofmann). Of course 
Paul by eioiv yap. x.7.A. means to say that Crete is the place where such 
chatterers are to be found. 

Ver. 11. Oi¢ dei excorouifew] goes back to the end of ver. 9.—érioropiteww 
(az. dey.) is from éxioréuov, Which denotes both the bridle-bit and the 
muzzle, and is equivalent either to freno compescere, coercere (synony- 
mous with roi¢ yatuwode cic Ta orduata BadAdew, Jas. iii. 8), or to os obturare 
(= d¢yuorv, Matt. xxii. 34). The latter signification is more usual (see 
Elsner, p. 382): “put to silence.’?\—oirwwec (= quippe qui, and giving the 
reason for od¢ dez) bAove oikove avatpérovor| The chief emphasis is laid on éAove: 
not merely individuals, but also whole families are misled by them into un- 
belief Avarpéxew] see 2 Tim. ii. 18; “ the figure is here used in keeping 
with oixove”” (Wiesinger).—dddoKovrec & yy dei] “ teaching what should not 
be taught; ” this shows the means by which they exercise so destructive 
an influence; 4 yy dei, equivalent to ra ua déovra, 1 Tim. vy. 18.2—This 
refers to pataidroyot, Just as avatpérove: does to dpevarara.—The purpose. is 
briefly set forth by aicypov xépdove yapw: The disgrace of their gain con- 
sists in the means they employ for acquiring it. The apostle adds these 
words to point out the selfish conduct of the heretics, who work only for 
their own profit. 

Ver. 12. Paul quotes the saying of a Cretan poet as a testimony 
regarding the Cretans.—eizé ric é& abtev idioc aitav mpodhryc] é avtav is 
by most expositors referred to the preceding oAdoi or to oi éx mepitopie; 
but such a reference is unsuitable; the apostle is rather thinking of Cre- 
tans in general.—The idsog airév declares still more strongly that the say- 


1Theophylact: éAéyxeww ohoSpas, Bare amo- ception what the latter denotes objectively. 
KAclewy avTois Ta OTOMaTA. We cannot, however, go as far as Hofmann, 

2The distinction between & wy Set and & ov who says: “» indicates that they who thus 
Set is rightly given by Winer, p. 448 [E. T. p. teach are conscious they ought not to do so, 
480]. The former expresses asa moral con- and teach in this way nevertheless.” 


CHAP. I. 10-13. 287 


ing proceeds from a Cretan and not from a stranger, see Winer, p. 146 LE. 
T. p. 154].—xpogirnc] According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Epiphanius, 
Jerome, it is Epimenides who is meant. [XXXV 0b.] This Epimenides 
was a contemporary of the’seven wise men, and by some was even reck- 
oned as one of them in place of Periander; he was born in the sixth 
century B.c. The saying quoted by Paul, which forms a complete hex- 
ameter, is said to have been in his lost work zepi ypyouav. Theodoret, on 
the other hand, ascribes the saying to Callimachus, who, however, was a 
Cyrenian in the third century B.c.; besides, it is only the first words that 
occur in his Hymn. ad Jov. ver. 8. Epiphanius and Jerome think that 
Callimachus took the words from Epimenides. Paul does not call Epi- 
menides a xpogjr7¢ because poets and philosophers were often called 
prophets in ancient times, but because the saying of Epimenides described 
beforehand the character of the Cretans as it was in the apostle’s time. 
Still it is to be noted that this very Epimenides was famed among the 
Greeks for his gift of wisdom, so that even Cicero (De Divinat. XViil.) 
places him among those vaticinantes per furorem.'—Kpjrec dei pevorat | 
Chrysostom refers these words chiefly to the pretence of the Cretans that 
Jupiter lay buried among them; to this, at any rate, the verse of Calli- 
machus refers ;* but the Cretans in ancient times were notorious for false- 
hood, so that, according to Hesychius, xpyrifew is synonymous with 
pevdeoba xai anxarav; for proofs of this, see in Wetstein.——KaKa Opia] denot- 
ing their wild, unruly character; some expositors refer this name 
specially to the greed of the Cretans, as Polybius, book vi., specially men- 
tions their aicypoxepdia kat rAcovecia; but it is more than improbable that 
Epimenides had this meaning in his words.—yaorépec apyat] synonymous 
with Phil. iii. 19: dv 6 Ode  Kovdia (comp. Rom. xvi. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 13, 
14); this denotes the Cretans as men given to sensuality. Plato, too (De 
Legg. i.), reproaches them with lust and immodesty.—The apostle’s pur- 
pose in quoting this saying of Epimenides is indicated in the next verse. 
The national character of the Cretans was such that they were easily per- 
suaded to listen to the heretics, and hence it was all the more necessary 
to oppose the latter firmly. 

Ver. 18. In confirmation of the verse quoted, Paul Says : 7 aptupia 
avtn éotiv adnOyc, and attaches to it an exhortation to Titus.’ Bertholdt, 
without reason, holds this verse to be a later interpolation —év jv airiay | 


1Comp. Diogenes Laertius, Vita Philos. p. time. But in spite of the character here de- 
81, ed. Henr. Steph. scribed, there might still be many individuals 
ready to receive the gospel; and yet because 


2This ver. : 5 
Pris kere rans of that peculiarity there was ground for 


Kpijtes aet Wedorar, anxiety lest they should be easily misled into 
Kpijres érextyvavto" unfaithfulness. De Wette is also wrong in 
Kai yap Tapov, & ava, ceio thinking that the expression regarding the 
av && ov Oaves* éoTi yap det. Cretans in yy. 12 f. does not harmonize with 


the apostle’s prudence in teaching.—But how 

3 De Wette thinks this confirmation by Paul bitterly Luther expresses himself regarding 

himself hard and unjust, since the gospel had the Germans, calling them, e.g., animals and 

been received in Crete in such a way that mad beasts! Was Luther on that account 
several churches were formed in a short deficient in prudence in his teaching? 


288 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


see 2 Tim. i. 6. Chrysostom: did tovro" éredy 700g abroic gory irapov kai 
Jodepov Kai axédaaorov; it refers to the picture of the Cretan character 
given in the testimony.—éAeyyxe airoig aroréuwc] éAeyxe, as in ver. 9; “the 
apostle here drops all reference to the bishops to be appointed, and assigns 
to Titus himself the duty of applying a remedy ” (Wiesinger).—airoic] 
not so much the heretics as the Cretans, who were exposed to their mis- 
leading influence. These latter needed the éAéyyewv, because they were 
not resisting the heretics as they ought, but (as oiri,e¢ bAove oikove avarpé- 
mover Shows) were yielding to them easily.—aroréyuc] “sharply, strictly ;” 
elsewhere only in 2 Cor. xiii. 10; the substantive azorouéa in Rom. xi. 
22.—iwa byivwow év tH riote:] “that they may be sound in the faith.” De 
Wette takes this as the immediate contents of the é/éyyew, just as iva 
occurs with zapaxaAciv, but without good grounds. ’Ey here is not instru- 
mental (Heinrichs: per religionem), but ior is the subject in which 
they are to be sound. 

Ver. 14. One especial requisite for the tyaivew év rH riotec is given by 
Paul in the participial clause: py mpocéxovrec "Iovdaixoic pvdow Kai évrodaic¢ 
x.7.A.] mpooéxovrec, see 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 1. Here, as in the epistles to Timo- 
thy, the heresies are called yifo., from the theories they contained; see 
on 1 Tim.i.4. Here, however, they are further defined by the epithet 
Iovdaixoi, as they were peculiar to Jewish speculation, though their sub- 
stance was derived from Gentile modes of thought. The description, too, 
in the First Epistle to Timothy shows that to the speculative part of the 
heresy there was added a legal element founded on an arbitrary interpre- 
tation of the Mosaic law. The évrodai of the heretics are here called évro- 
Aai avépirwv arootpedouévor tiv aegbecav: “commands of men which depart 
from the truth,” because they were founded not on Christianity, but on the 
arbitrary wills of men estranged from Christianity. These évroAai con- 
visted not so much of moral precepts, as of prohibitions of food and the 
like, see 1 Tim. iv. 3. Hofmann refers the adjective "Iovdaixoic, and the 
defining words avépérwv x.7.2., to both substantives,—a possible construc- 
tior. but not necessary. His reasons are far from sufficient.—azoorpedo- 
pévov’ see 2 Tim. i. 15. [XXXV ¢] 

Ver. 5. The anvostle, bearing in mind the prohibitions of the heretics, 
opposes te them a general principle which shows their, worthlessness.— 
mavta Kafapa “ig xabapoic] ravra quite generally: all things in themselves, 
with which a man may simply have to do, but not a man’s actions, nor, 
as Heydenreich thinks, the errors of the heretics. The usual explanation 
which limits the bearing of the words to the arbitrary rules of the heretics 
regarding food and other things, is only so far right that Paul lays down 
his general principle with special reference to these rules; but zévra 
itself should be taken quite generally. Even the exposition of Matthies: 
“all that falls into the sphere of the individual wants of life,” places an 
unsuitable limitation on the meaning. Chrysostom rightly: odév 6 Ocd¢ 
axafaprov éroincev.—xabapad as the predicate of xavra is to be connected 
with it by supplying éori: “all is pure,” viz. roi¢ xaapoic. Bengel: omnia 
externa iis, qui intus sunt mundi, munda sunt. Many expositors wrongly 





CHAP. “1.” 14,110: 289 


refer the conception of xafapoi to knowledge! It should rather be taken 
as referring to disposition : to those who have a pure heart everything is 
pure (not: “to them everything passes for pure’’), i.e. as to the pure, 
things outside of them have no power to render them impure.” On ka6a- 
poic, van Oosterzee remarks: “ By nature no one is pure; those here 
called xafapoi are those who have purified their heart by faith, Acts xv. 
9.” This is right, except that Paul is not thinking here of the means by 
which the man becomes xafapéc; the indication of this point is given 
afterwards in azioroc. The apostle purposely makes the sentence very 
emphatic, because it was with the distinction between pure and impure 
that the heretics occupied themselves so much.—The contrast to the first 
sentence is given in the words: roi¢ dé peusaupévore Kai axiatote ovdév Kabapév. 
Regarding the form peyiaypévoc, see Winer, p. 84 [E. T. p. 88].2 The 
verb forms a simple contrast with xafapoic, and stands here not in a Levit- 
ical (John xviii. 28), but in an ethical sense, as in Heb. xi. 15; Jude 8. 
Kai azioroe is not an epexegesis of pewiayu., but adds a new point to it, 
viz. the attitude of the heretics towards the saving truths of the gospel. 
The two words do not denote two different classes of men, as the article 
toi¢ 18 Only used once. To these impure men nothing is pure, 7. e. every 
external thing serves only to awaken within them impure lust.—a/aa 
pepiavta avtav Kai 6 voice Kai 4 ovveidnowc] This sentence expresses posi- 
tively what oidév kabapév expressed negatively, at the same time furnish- 
ing the reason for the preceding thought. De Wette’s opinion therefore 
is not correct, that “for 4224 there should properly have been yap; the 
author, however, makes moral character equivalent to moral action.” The 
relation of the two sentences is pretty much the same as if, e.g., we were 
to say: he is not rich, but his father has disinherited him. If Paul had 
used yap, the sentence would simply have furnished the reason for what 
preceded ; aAAa, on the other hand, indicates the contrast. Still we must 
not conclude, with Hofmann, that the second sentence merely says the 
same thing as the first. It should be interpreted: “but to them every- 
thing is impure, because their vov¢e and their cuveidyore are defiled.” —Noi¢ 
and ovveidyove do not here denote the inner nature of man on the two 
sides of knowledge and will (so Hofmann). Novc is the spiritual faculty 
of man acting in both directions; in N. T. usage the reference to action 
prevails, vov¢ being equivalent to the practical reason. uveidyou, on the 
other hand, is the human consciousness connected with action, and ex- 
pressing itself regarding the moral value of action; it corresponds to 
“conscience” (see on 1 Tim.i.38). The two conceptions are distinguished 


1As Jerome; qui sciunt omnem creaturam 
bonam esse, or as Beza: quibus notum est 
libertatis per Christum partae beneficium. 

2From the same point of view we have in 
the Testam. XII. Patriarch. test. Benjam. chap. 
Vili.: 6 Exwy Stdvorcay KaBapay ev ayarpn, ovx 
Opa yuvatka €is mopveiay’ ov yap éxer miagpov 
éy 77 kapdia. Kindred thoughts are found in 


19 


Matt. xxiii. 26; Luke xi. 41; comp. also the 
similar expression in Rom. xiv. 20. 

3 Also Veitch, Irregular Greek Verbs, s. v. 

4De Wette asserts, without reason, that 
ovveidyots is the “ consciousness that follows,” 
since the consciousness of the deed may pre- 
cede as well as accompany and follow it— 
Wiesinger explains vods inaccurately by: “the 


290 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


from each other by «ait . . . «ai, and at the same time closely connected. 
By this, however, no special emphasis is laid on the second word (formerly 
in this commentary). In iii. 11 (airoxardxpiroc) and 1 Tim. iy. 2, the 
apostle again says as much as that the conscience of the heretics was 
defiled. Though the thought contained in this verse is quite general in 
character, Paul wrote it with special reference to the heretics, and is there- 
fore able to attach to it a further description of them. 

Ver. 16. Oedv duoroyovow eidévac] not: “they pretend” (Matthies), but 
“they loudly and publicly confess,”’ that they know God. Paul leaves it 
undecided whether their confession is correct or not. He does not grant 
to them, as de Wette thinks, that “they have the theoretical knowledge 
of God, and in a practical aspect,” nor does he deny this to them. His 
purpose here is to declare that, in spite of this their confession, their 
actions are of such a nature as to argue that they had no knowledge of 
God: roic dé épyoue apvotvtar] apvovvtar, Opposed to duoAoyovow, see 1 Tim. 
y.8; 2 Tim. iii. 5. Supply Oedv eidévac (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). 
—pdeAvnrot vtec Kal amefeic] Bdedvktéc (az. Aey.), equivalent to abomina- 
bilis, detestable (comp. Luke xvi. 15); Luther: “whom God holds in 
abomination.” —The word is joined with axd@aproc in Proy. xvii. 15, LX X. 
Paul does not apply this epithet to the heretics, because they were defil- 
ing themselves with actual worship of idols, which especially was re- 
garded by the Jews as #déAvyua, but in order to describe their moral 
depravity.—xai areieic] “and disobedient,” synonymous with avuréraxro 
in ver. 10; this indicates why they are deAvKtoi.—kai mpdc av épyov aya- 
Gov adéxiuor] “the result of the preceding characteristics” (Wiesinger) ; 
addxiuoc, aS 2 Tim. iii. 8. : 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXXII. Vv. 1-4. 


(a) With respect to several of the points in these verses which contain the 
salutation of this Epistle, the reader is referred to Notes I. and XXI., above. A 
’ few words as to some of them may be.added here:—1. That xara rictw can be 
; explained, with R. V. and A. V., as meaning according to, is denied by Alf., who 
says “it is inadmissible.” The objection made to this explanation is substantially 
that which Huther presents, “that it is opposed to the apostolic spirit to make 
appeal on behalf of the apostleship to its harmony with the faith of the elect.” 
But if the faith of the elect is here spoken of, as it may be, in its relation to the 
great truth towards which the faith goes out, and on which it rests, this objection 
falls away. It must be admitted, however, as already remarked in Note XXI., 


entire spiritual habitus” (van Oosterzee still 
more inaccurately by: “the tendency of the 
man, the direction of his entire disposition”), 
but cvveténaots quite accurately by: “the moral 
consciousness of my thinking and action in 
their relation to the law.” 

1Hofmann asserts that this explanation is 


contrary to the meaning of the word, and that 
opodoyecv here must be taken in its most gen- 
eral signification as — “ declare, affirm ;” but 
we cannot see why. It is to be noted that 
ouodoyery in the N. T. always indicates an 
utterance more or less emphatic; also Matt. 
vii. 23 (comp. Meyer on the passage). 


NOTES. 291 
that this sense of the preposition is less probable here than in the case of kar 
érayyediav of 2 Tim. i. 2, and that, with this sense, the expression becomes a quite 
peculiar one, to which we find nothing fully corresponding elsewhere in Paul’s 
declarations as to his apostleship. The meaning given by Huther, “in regard to 
faith,’ or the more definite one expressing purpose, “for faith,” Ell., Alf. or 
“for producing faith,’ Dykes and others, is, on the whole, to be preferred. 
Holtzmann says according to, secundum fidem catholicam. He urges, and the argu- 
ment must undoubtedly be regarded as having force, that the same preposition in 
the phrase kar’ evoéfecav, and also in the phrase, in ver. 4, kata kowjv rior, and 
it might be added, in kar’ émvtayyv (ver. 3), has this signification. Still the gen- 
eral thought of Paul—that his office was given according to Divine appointment, 
but for the purpose of producing faith on the part of men—might easily suggest to 
the reader the different uses of the preposition as intended here.—2. As to the 
relation of ékAexTov to Tiotvv, the view of Huther, with whom EIl., Alf., and 
some others agree, is to be adopted, because of the reason which Huther presents, 
and also because, if the meaning were the producing of faith and knowledge in 
the elect, the exAextoi would probably be mentioned after both of the nouns tiortvv 
and éxiyvwovv, and the expression would more naturally be év toi¢ éxAexroi¢ than 
éxAext@v.—(b) ELL, and de W. give to kar’ evoéBevav the same sense, so far as the 
preposition is concerned, as to kata rior, But it is much more in accordance 
with the analogy of ordinary usage, in such cases, to make it define the truth 
spoken of as that which corresponds with evoéBeva—(c) én’ éAmids ,7.A. is most 
naturally connected, not with azéoroAo¢ as Huther takes it, but with ziorvy and all 
that follows as far as evoéBevav, The faith and knowledge, etc., rest upon hope of 
eternal life. When all these words are taken together, and especially when they 
are taken in connection with what follows, we may notice how nearly they ap- 
proach, in the main idea, to the étayyediav Cue of 2 Tim. i. 2, and how possible 
it is to regard them, though primarily referring to what is subjective to the Chris- 
tian mind, as suggesting also the objective truth which is at the foundation of the 
belief and knowledge—the truth and promise appertaining to the eternal life. 
The possibility of giving to cata, eyen in the phrase kata riotiv, the sense of 
according to is clearly not to be rejected altogether, and without hesitation, as 
Alford rejects it. The question is one of probabilities only, and the most that 
can be affirmed as to the other sense—for, or in relation to, or to produce—is that it 
has somewhat greater probability in its favor—(d) The correspondence in phrase- 
ology of vv. 2, 3 with 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 is worthy of remark. Except for the word 
oeorynpévov, there is a noticeable correspondence with Rom. xvi. 25. In regard to 
this word, the suggestion of Alford is a just one, that there is a mingling, in both 
of the passages in the Past. Epp., of the two ideas of the actual promise, made in 
time, and of the purpose fixed from eternity, as the result of which the promise 
came. The purpose was kept in silence (ceovy.) through eternal times, but has 
now been made manifest to all by the prophetic writings and by the apostolic pro- 
clamation.—(e) Tisch. places a comma after aiwviwy of ver. 2, and thus makes 
Aéyov depend on é¢avépwoev, So R. V., Huther, Alf., Ell., and many others. On 
the other hand, W. and H. omit the comma following aiwviwv and insert one 
after idiove. They accordingly seem to regard tov Adyov as in apposition with 7». 
This construction ‘is much less simple, for, though the other involves a change from 
a relative to an independent clause, such a change is not so singular, in a writer 
like Paul, as the introduction of such a peculiar apposition as Adéyov following 7» 


292 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


would be in the present sentence.—(f) kata xow7jv riotw (ver. 4) qualifies yuyoiw 
véxv, Titus was the genuine son of Paul only in accordance with the faith, which 
was common to the two and to all Christians——(g) The application of the word 
owthp both to ded¢ (ver. 3) and Xpuoro¢ "Inoove (ver. 4) is noticeable. The omission 
of éAeo¢ is to be allowed, on the authority of the best manuscripts and versions. 


XXXIV. Vv. 5-9. 


(a) The epistle opens, like 1 Tim., with the statement as to the purpose with 
which the Apostle had left his friend and assistant in the place where he had 
himself been working on behalf of the Church. The indications of the passage, 
and of the epistle, are such that we must suppose, even as in the case of Ephesus 
as alluded to in 1 Tim., that the Church in Crete had not now been just established, 
but that it had been founded at an earlier time, and had been in existence for a 
considerable period. During a recent visit, however, Paul had evidently done 
something in the way of strengthening and more permanently organizing the 
believers, and now, as he is himself called to move on to other regions, he leaves Titus 
to complete the work. The striking correspondences between this letter and 1 
Tim., both in the matters referred to and in language and style, show clearly that 
the two epistles belong to the same period of the Apostle’s life. Their date must 
be after the close of the history as given in the Acts, and the one must have been 
separated from the other by an interval of only a few months or a year.—(b) The 
phrase tovrov yap occurs in Eph. iii. 1. 14, in both of which verses it refers to 
what precedes. Here it undoubtedly refers to what follows, and rovrov is explained 
by the wa clause. éxidtop§aoy is to be understood as Huther interprets it—the pre- 
position “ conveying the notion of something additional,” and thus answering to 
Ta Asizovta, Kai adds the particular thing which follows with a certain emphasis, 
showing that this was a matter of special importance as accomplishing the end in 
view.—(c) The fact that the tpeofirepo and the éxickoro: were the same is plainly 
set forth in this passage. As to the manner in which the presbyters were to be 
appointed, Huther quotes approvingly the remark of Hofmann, that the appoint- 
ment was to be made by Titus himself, according to his own choice, and not in 
connection with an election by the Christians, who were as yet not organized into 
a community. Dykes, on the other hand, says “it was part of the apostolic 
‘ function to institute church officers. But the word ordain (used of deacons in Acts 
~ vi. 3) tells nothing of how the elders were selected or appointed.” Wiesinger 
also remarks that “the expression throws no light on the question whether this 
appointment of presbyters was to be with or without the co-operation of the 
church. In Acts vi. 3, kadvordvar expresses an action common to the apostle and 
the church. In Acts xiv. 23, we read yerpotovgoavte avtoi¢ mpeoBurépovc, which, 
compared with 2 Cor. viii. 16, represents the idea of a co-operation on the part of 
the church as more probable, although it does not necessitate such a supposition, 
comp. Acts x. 41.” The view of Wiesinger is probably correct. That the church 
took action in matters of its own government, and generally, if not always, in the 
selection of its officers, is indicated in several places in the N. T., and cannot 
reasonably be questioned, as these indications are observed. That in the case of 
newly organized bodies of believers such appointments were made, with the consent 
of the church, by Paul or his associates is not impossible or improbable. But 
there is no satisfactory evidence, that these officers were imposed on the churches 


NOTES. 293 


without such consent.—(d) The qualifications for the office of bishop or presbyter, 
which are given here, are substantially the same with those mentioned in 1 Tim. 
The slight differences in the words and in the order of arrangement, and the 
addition in ver. 9 of what is found in another connection in 1 Tim., are charac- 
teristic of the style of Paul in different epistles belonging to the same period of 
time. The thing required of the bishop in ver. 9 is, in substance, the same as 
that which is urged upon Timothy in relation to his own personal work, in 1 Tim. 
i.3 ff. The force of avteyéuevov (ver. 9) is given by Grimm as firmiter adhaerere, 
holding firmly to. The construction of the following words is that which Huther 
favors. The Apostle, accordingly, demands of the éxicxoroc, that he should hold 
fast to the “faithful” (i.e. trustworthy, to be relied wpon) “word,” which is in 
accordance with the Christian doctrine (the instruction which has been given 
him), in order that, etc. The two things which are referred to in the iva clause 
are things which are needful in all ages, but there is no doubt that they are 
introduced, here, in a special connection with the demands of the particular time 
and region in which these two friends of the Apostle, Timothy and Titus, were now 
carrying forward their work. May it not be the fact, also, that, in the case of 
some of the more general words which precede those of ver. 9, points are mentioned 
with respect to the qualifications of the presbyter-bishops, which are suggested by 
opposite characteristics in the erroneous teachers of the day ? 


XXXYV. Vv. 10-16. 


(a) Ver. 10 introduces the statement of the existence of such errorists as the 
ground for the necessity of the qualification just mentioned (ver. 9) in the person 
who is to be appointed a presbyter. Vv. 10, 11 set forth the fact that they are 
mainly Jewish Christians, and add two other points which are also mentioned in 
1 Tim. vi. 5 ff, and 2 Tim. iii. 6, 7, though not in precisely the same terms— 
namely, avariciousness and the subverting of whole houses, which latter expres- 
sion seems to refer to a perverting them from the faith. The point indicated by 
HataoAdyo: is found, also, in the corresponding passage 1 Tim. i. 6, and that 
indicated by didacx. G@ uy dei, in 1 Tim. v. 13. The heretics, thus, are evidently 
the same class of persons in the two epistles—(b) The quotation in ver. 12, 
and one or two other quotations occurring in other places (Acts xvii. 28,1 Cor. xv. 
33), have been supposed to indicate a wide acquaintance on the part of the Apostle 
with Greek literature. But the evidence for this is very slight, and the inference 
which may be drawn is, rather, on the other side—namely, that the very small 
number of allusions in his epistles to anything in the writings of Greek authors 
shows him to have had little knowledge of them. The characteristics here 
mentioned as belonging to the Cretans, and the words which follow, make it probable 
that the persons to whom the sharp reproof was to be given, were the members of 
the church, whom the heretical teachers were leading astray, rather than the 
teachers themselves. The verb éAeyye conveys the idea of confuting, and not 
simply of reproving or rebuking—(c) The heretics are further described in the 
words following av3peérwv of ver. 14, but in a manner which, in general, corres- 
ponds with what we find in the epistles to Timothy (1 Tim. vi. and 2 Tim. iii. iv.). 
Here the foundation of the whole is placed in-the fact that they are not ka¥apoé. 
The reader, who carefully and candidly examines the false doctrines against which 
Paul contends in his various epistles, and the characteristics of the false teachers 


294 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


as he gives them—tracing the matter in the chronological succession of the 
letters,—may convince himself of two things: 1. that the Jewish element, which 
was the original one, and was, at first, unmingled with any other, continued even 
to the end, only that, as time moved on, it became united with, and greatly affected 
by, Greek or Oriental philosophizing ; and 2. that the development of error was 
in the exact line in which it might naturally have been expected to take place, 
and neither more rapid nor greater than the possibilities of the period of Paul’s 
life-time allowed. ; 


CHAP. II. 295 


CHAPTER ITI. 


Ver. 3. év xataorfuat:] For this F G, without reason, have xataoyhuati.— 
Some mss. (C H** al.) have the reading ‘eporperei; Vulg.: in habitu sancto, 
which gives a good enough meaning, but must, however, be regarded as a mere 
correction ; see Reiche on the passage—7/ oivw] A Cy 73, al., have the reading 
pndé for wy.—Ver. 4. For the Rec. cwppovifworv, supported by C D E K L, cwdpovi- 
Covey is read by AF G Hy, al. (Lachm. Tisch.). The conjunctive seems to be a 
correction, because the indicative contradicts the force of the iva; but also in 1 Cor. 
iv. 6, Gal. iv. 17, it stands after va. In these passages, however, Meyer explains 
iva as equivalent to ubi ; comp. Winer, pp. 272 f. [E. T. p. 290], and Buttm. p. 
202 [E. T. 235]. As in later post-apostolic times, the construction with the indic. 
was not unusual, cwpovifovew is possibly to be ascribed to a later copyist.—Ver. 
5. Instead of the word oixovpov¢ (Rec. supported by D*** H J K, the cursives, 
Fathers, and versions), which occurs frequently in classic Greek, A C D* EF G 
x have the word oixovpyov¢ (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), which is not used elsewhere. 
Matthaei declares this to be a lectio vitiosa et inepta; so Reiche. De Wette 
thinks it an error in copying, as the word does not occur elsewhere. This cer- 
tainly is possible, and yet it is strange that it should have such weighty testimony. 
Matthaei thinks that the scribae istorum sex codicum were so very barbari that 
the word oixovpé¢ was unknown to them; but that is hardly conceivable——Ver. 
7. The Ree. advagtopiav (D*** E** L, al., Chrys.) is to be exchanged for the read- 
ing a@dopiav (A C D* E* K y, al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), though Reiche seeks 
to prove from the meaning of two substantives not used elsewhere that the Rec. 
should be preferred. As the adj. ad:a@opoc frequently occurs, and agvopo¢ but 
seldom, we may readily suppose that the Rec. was a correction in keeping with 
the more usual adjective—After oewvétyta, D** KE, gr. 23, 44, and many other 
cursives, etc., have the word agVapoiav ; but the weightiest authorities are against 
its genuineness, A C D* (E apud Mill) F G 47, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. 
It. ete.—Ver. 8. epi 7judév] so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., supported by C D E FG 
K L Px 17, 23, al., many versions and Fathers. Lachm. retained the common 
reading.—Both readings give a good sense, but the testimony assigns the prefer- 
ence to 7@v. Matthies wrongly says that A C D E F G have the reading tov. 
—Ver. 9. Instead of idiowe dsorérace (Tisch. 8, on the authority of CF G K Ly), 
Lachm. (so, too, Tisch. 7) reads deorérare idiowe, on the authority of A D E 27, 
al., Vulg. It. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al—Ver. 10. For 4, the correction y7dé is 
found in D F G, al, 17.—rxacav riorw] for tiotw racav (Tisch. 7). This is 
read by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A C D E x 31, 37, al., Vulg. 
Clar. Germ. Jerome, Ambrosiast—After d:dacxadiav Griesb. inserted 17”, with 
the support of the weightiest authorities, A C D E F G I x, al., Chrys. Theodor. 
—Ver. 11. Instead of 7 owrypic¢ (Tisch. 7), cwrfproc, without the article, has been 
adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A* C* D x, Syr. utr. 


296 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


The reading: tov owr7po¢ juov, found in F G, Copt. Aeth. al., must have arisen 
from ver. 10; still ~ has owr7jpoc¢.—Ver. 13. Tisch. 7 reads "Iycov Xpiorov, with 
the support of most Mss.; on the other hand, Tisch. 8 reads Xpuoroi Iyoov. 


Ver. 1. [On Vy. 1-8, see Note XXXVI., pages 305, 306.] Instructions 
to Titus how he is to exhort the various members of families, down to 
ver. 10. [XXXVI a.]—ci dé] see 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 5. A contrast with the 
‘heretics, not, however, as Chrysostom puts it: aitoi elow axafapror GAAd mi 
rovTwr évexev ovyhong. It is with regard to their unseemly doctrine that 
Paul says: ob dé Addee & mpérer tH bytaw. didackadia. In contrast with 
their pido. and évroAai avdporuv, Titus is to speak things in harmony with 
sound doctrine, by which are meant not so much the doctrines of the 
gospel themselves, as the commands founded on them, vy. 3 ff. (Wiesin- 
ger). On rq ty. did., seei.9. [XXXVI b.] 

Ver. 2. The members of the family are distinguished according to age 
and sex. First, we have zpeoBirac, which is not equivalent to mpecBurépove, 
the official name, but denotes age simply: senes aetate; Philem. 9; Luke 
1. 18.—vygariove civac] The accusative does not depend on a word under- 
stood such as rapaxaer, but is an object accusative to the verb preceding 
Adrer & mpérer: “viz. that the old men be vypdAcov.”—vygadiove] see 1 Tim. 
iil. 2.—ceuvoic] see 1 Tim. ii. 2.—oddpovac] i. 8; 1 Tim. iii. 2.—iyraivovrac 
Th Tiorel, TH ayaty, TH brouovg] On the use of the dative here, for which in 
i. 13 there stands the preposition év, see Winer, p. 204 [E. T. p. 217]; it 
is to be explained as equivalent to “in respect of, in regard to.”—To riotic 
and aya7y, the cardinal virtues of the Christian life, ixovov” (quasi utrius- 
que condimentum, Calvin) is added, the stedfastness which no sufferings 
can shake. All three conceptions are found together also in 1 Thess. i. 3 
(4 tropovn tie éAridoc); brou. and miorec in 2 Thess. i. 4; ay. cad irou., 2 
Thess. iii. 5; comp. also 1 Tim. vi. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 10. 

Ver. 3. IpeoBiridag (“the aged women ”= zpeoBirepa in 1 Tim. v. 2) 
aoabrwc (see 1 Tim. ii. 9) év kataorjpare isporpereic] [XXXVI c.] xardornua 
is taken in too narrow a sense, only of the clothing (Oecumenius: ré 
~ repiBd2aa). Itdenotes the entire external deportment; Jerome: ut ipse 
éarum incessus et motus, vultus, sermo, silentium, quandam decoris sacri 
praeferant dignitatem.. Heydenreich, on the other hand, makes the con- 
ception too wide, when he includes under it the temper of mind.—iepo- 
mpereic] (a7. ey.) 18 equivalent to Kalo rpérer ayiow, Eph. vy. 3; comp. also. 
1 Tim. ii. 10. Luther rightly: “ that they behave themselves as becometh 
saints.”"—yu7 dcaBdaove] see 1 Tim. iii. 11.—y7 oinw 702A Sedovdwpévag is 
equivalent to ji oiv. x. xpooéyovrac in 1 Tim. iii. 8.—xarodidacxarove] (az. 
dey.) Beza: “ honestatis magistrae ; agitur hic dé domestica disciplina; ” 
but not so much by example as by exhortation and teaching, as appears 
from what follows. 

Vv. 4,5. "Iva owppovilwor race véac «.7.2.] Since cwdpovifew must necessarily 
have an object, ra¢ véac «7.2. should not, like rpecBirac vydadiove elvat, ver. 
2, and rpeoBiridac, ver. 3, be joined with Adie, ver. 1 (Hofmann), but with 
swppovifovow, so that the exhortations given to the young women are to pro- 


CHAP. II. 1-6. 297 
ceed from the older women.'—cugpovifew] (a7. Zey.) is properly “ bring 
some one to cwdpocivyn,” then “amend,” viz. by punishment; it also occurs 
in the sense of “ punish, chastise ;” it is synonymous with vovfereiv.2 Ac- 
cording to Beza, it expresses opposition to the juvenilis lascivia et alia ejus 
aetatis ac sexus vitia—The aim of the owdpovifew is given in the next 
words: giAdvdpove (am. dey.) eivar, prAotéxvouc (az. Aey.). These two ideas are 
suitably placed first, as pointing to the first and most obvious cireum- 
stances of the véa.—Ver. 5. cégpovac ayvac] The latter is to be taken here 
not in the general sense of “ blameless,” but in the more special sense of 
“chaste”? (Wiesinger).—oixovpotc (Rec.); Wahl rightly: “ex oixog et obpo¢ 
custos: custos domus, de feminis, quae domi se continent neque repiépy- 
ovra, 1 Tim. v.13.” Vulgate: domus curam habentes; Luther: “ domes- 
tic.” The word oixovpyotc [XXXVI d.] (read by Tischendorf, see critical 
remarks) does not occur elsewhere; if it be genuine, it must mean 
“working in the house” (Alford: “workers at home’’), which, indeed, does 
not agree with the formation of the word. The word oi«ovpyeiv occurring 
in later Greek means: “make a house;” see Pape, s. v. — aya6ac] is rightly 
taken by almost all as an independent epithet : “kindly.” Some expositors, 
however, connect it with oixovpot¢ (so Theophylact, Oecumenius) ; but this 
is Wrong, since oixovpoic¢ is itself an adjective. Hofmann joins it with oixoup- 
yotc, and translates it “good housewives” (so Buttmann, in his edition 
of the N. T., has no comma between the two words); but where are the 
grounds for explaining oixovpyotc to mean “ housewives” ?—iroraccopévac Toig 
idiowe avdpaow] On roi¢ idiow avdp., comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2. The thought that 
wives are to be subject to their husbands is often expressed in the N. T. 
in the same words, comp. Eph. v. 22; Col. iii. 18; 1 Pet iii. 1. Itis to be 
noted that the apostle adds this iroracoovévac after using ¢:Advdpove. The 
one thing does not put an end to the other; on the contrary, neither 
quality is of the right kind unless it includes the other. How much 
weight was laid by the apostle on the irordccecfac may be seen from the 
words : iva py 6 Adyoc Tov Oeot BAacdnuAra, Which are closely connected with 
brotaccouévac K.7.2.; Comp. ver. 10, where the same thought is expressed 
positively, and1 Tim. vi. 1. The apostolic preaching of freedom and 
equality in Christ might easily be applied in a fleshly sense for removing 
all natural subordination, and thus disgrace be brought on the word of 
God ; hence the express warning.* 

Ver. 6. Tove vewrépove] “the younger men ;’ 


’ 


not, as Matthies supposes, 


10f course there might be circumstances 
in which owdpovigery could stand without an 


tion is expressly given, or can be easily 
supplied from the context. 


object, as e.g. mapaxadecy in 2 Tim. iv. 2 (to 
which Hofmann appeals); but here a definite 
object was needed to tell to whom the cwdpov. 
of the older women had reference, it being 
impossible to assign it to them without some 
limitation. It is to be noted that in the pas- 
sage—in which mapexadcoey is joined with 
another transitive vyerb—the object is very 
easily supplied, and that in the N. T., when 
wapaxadecy is used, the more precise limita- 


2 Dio Cassius, lv. p. 650: Set tots méev Adyots 
vouOetety, Tovs Sé ametAats awhpovicery. 

8Chrysostom: 7 oikoupds yuvn Kai codpwv 
€gTat’  OiKovpos Kal olKOovouLKn OUTE TeEpi 
Tpupyv, ovTe mept efddous akalpous, OvTE TeEpL 
GAAWY TOV TOLOVTwWY agTXoANOyCETAL. 

4The remark of Chrysostom: et oupBatn 
yuvalka mLoTHY amigTw ouVOLKOVGaY, my clvac 
évapetov, n BAachynuia emt Tov Oeov dScaBatverv 
elwGev, is unsatisfactory, because the apostle’s 


298 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


the younger members of the church, without distinction of sex.—décab- 
tw¢] here, as in ver. 3, on account of the similarity of the exhortation.— 
mapakdAer ougpoveiv| equivalent to cd¢povag elvar, opposed to omnibus immod- 
eratis affectibus (Beza). Hofmann: “The whole purport of the apostle’s 
exhortations is included by the apostle in the one word cwpoveiv, which 
therefore contains everything in which the moral influence of Christian- 
ity may be displayed.” 

Vv. 7, 8. The exhortation by word is to be accompanied by the exhor- 
tation of example. [XXXVI e.]—zepi rdévta] does not belong to what 
precedes, but begins a new sentence, and is put first for emphasis. Tdvra 
is not masculine: “towards every one,” but neuter: “in regard to all 
things, in all points.” —oeavrov rape xouevoc tirov Kadav épywv] On the use of 
the middle rapéyec6a with the pronoun éavrév, “show himself,” see Winer, 
p. 242 [E. T. p. 257].2—rizov, “type,” is in the N. T. only found here with 
the genitive of the thing.—xa2a épya] 1 Tim. v.10; an expression often 
occurring in the Pastoral Epistles.—év ry didackatia agfopiav] This and the 
following accusatives are dependent on zepeyéuevoc; see Col. iv. 1. Luther 
inaccurately : “with unadulterated doctrine, with sobriety,” etc. ; Jerome: 
in doctrina, in integritate et castitate —a@Aopia, only in later Greek, is from 
agopoc,? which is equivalent to “chaste,” and therefore means “ unstained 
chastity.” ‘AdvapSopia (Rec.) is of more general signification; it is also 
used of virgin chastity,t but denotes in general soundness, also especially 
incorruptibility. Older as well as more recent expositors (Heydenreich, 
Mack, Wiesinger) refer the word here to the disposition: “ purity of dis- 
position ;”® but it is more in accordance with the context to understand 
by it something immediately connected with the didackadia, to which ceuvd- 
tyra also refers. Matthies, de Wette, and others refer it (as does Luther 
also) to the subject-matter of the doctrine; de Wette: “incorruptness in 
doctrine, 7. e. unadulterated doctrine.” But in that case it would mean 
the same thing as the following Aéyov by; there isno justification for Ben- 
gel’s interpreting év didacxadia to mean public addresses, and Aéyov the talk 
of daily intercourse. According to its original meaning, a¢Sopia is most 
suitably taken to mean chastity in doctrine, which avoids everything not 
in harmony with its true subject and aim, and it has a special reference to 
the form (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, 3). So, too, van Oosterzee: “the form of the 
doctrine which Titus preaches is to be pure, chaste, free from everything 
that conflicts with the nature of the gospel.” —ceuvéryra, on the other hand, . 


words are thereby arbitrarily restricted to a 2Comp. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 1. 39: mapa- 
relation which is quite special. Serywa ... Toiovde eavTov mapeixero. 
1 Hofmann remarks that the transition to 3In Artemidorus, ver. 95: de virginibus 


the younger men makes it clear “that he was puerisque intactis et illibatis legitur; Reiche; 
to exhort the younger women also himself, _Esth. ii. 2: xopaova ap@opa cada tT, etder. 
and not merely by means of the older ones;” 4 Artac. 26, Diodorus Siculus, i. 59. 

but in that case Paul would simply have 5 Reiche, who prefers the reading aédad@o- 
written : Tovs vewrepovs owhpovery,and further, piav, agrees with the exposition of Erasmus; 
in that case it would have been more natural _integritas animi nullis cupiditatibus corrupt) 
for him to mention the vewrepo firstand then non ira-non ambitione non avaritia. 

the véas. 


cHAP. 1. 7-10. 299 
denotes dignity in the style of delivery. Both these things, the a@sopia 
and the cenvérnc, were injured by the heretics in their Aoyouayias.'—Adyov 
byw axatéyvoorov (ar. Hey.) refers to the subject-matter of the doctrine : 
“ sound, unblamable word,” is opposition to the corruptions made by the 
heretics—The purpose is thus given: ‘va 6 é§ évavriag évtpari| 6 && évavtiag 
(ar. Aey.), qui ex adverso est; according to Chrysostom: 6 diaBor0¢ Kai 
rac 6 éxeivw diaxovodyevoc; but the next words are against this interpreta- 
tion. According to ver.5 and 1 Tim. vi. 1, it means the non-Christian 
opponent of the gospel, and not the Christian heretic (Heydenreich, Wies- 
inger).—évrpary, “be ashamed, take shame to oneself ;” 1 Cor. iv. 14; 2 
Thess. iii. 14. The reason for the shame is contained in the words: p7dév 
Exov repli judar (or duav) Aéyew gavdov] “ having nothing wicked to say of us.”— 
If rep juav be the correct reading, it is not to be limited to Titus and 
Paul, but should be taken more generally. With the reading iar, on the 
other hand, the apostle’s words refer to Titus and the churches that follow 
his example. 

Vv. 9,10. [On Vv. 9-15, see Note XXXVII., pages 306-311.] Exhor- 
tation in regard to slaves.—dotAoue idiowe deororaic (or deororaic idiowc) brordo- 
ceodal] [XX XVII a.] The construction shows that Paul is continuing the 
instructions which he gives to Timothy in regard to the various members 
of families, so that vv. 7 and 8 are parenthetical ; tapaxdiex is to be supplied 
from ver. 6. Heydenreich and Matthies wrongly make this verse depend- 
ent on ver1. The harder the lot of the slaves, and the more unendur- 
able this might appear to the Christian slave conscious of his Christian 
dignity, the more necessary was it to impress upon him the irordocectac. 
Even this is not sufficient, and so Paul further adds: év raovw ebapéorouc 
eat. ’Ev raow, equivalent to “in all points” (ver. 7: mepi ravra ; Col. iii. 
20, 22: xara révra), is usually joined with ebapéorove eivar; Hofmann, on 
the contrary, wishes to connect it with irordccecda. Both constructions 
_are possible; still the usual one is to be preferred, because the very posi- 
tion of the slaves made it a matter of course that the ixordocecFa should 
be evinced in its full extent, whereas the same could not be said of eva- 
pector elvat, since that goes beyond the duty of brordocectac. The word 
evdpeoroc occurs frequently in the Pauline Epistles, but only in speaking 
of the relation to God. The two first exhortations refer to general con- 
duct; to these the apostle adds two special points: 7 avriaéyovtac and ui 
vooditouévove. Hofmann is wrong in saying that i) avti2éyovrac is the anti- 
thesis of ebapéorove. The conduct of slaves, which is well-pleasing to mas- 
ters, includes more than refraining from contradiction. Van Oosterzee 
says not incorrectly : “It is not contradiction in particular instances, but 
the habitus that is here indicated.” Luther: “not contradicting.” The 
verb voogitecda: is found only here and in Acts v. 2, 3: “not pilfering, 
defrauding.”—The next words: a42a@ racav riotw évdeckvupévove ayadyv 
(Luther : “but showing all good fidelity”), is in the first place opposed to 

1Hofmann wishes to refer both words to in that case Paul does not specially name the 


the subject-matter and form alike; and so, latter. 
also, with Adyov vye7; but we cannot see why 


300 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


uh voopiCouévove, but includes more than merely to abstain from defrauding 
(in opposition to Hofmann). As in ver. 5, so, too, here, where the main- 
tenance of the natural duties of subordinates is under discussion, the apos- 
tle adds iva rv didackadiav x.7.4., except that the expression is now positive, 
whereas before it was negative; the thought is substantially the same. 
—7 diWaoKakia is equivalent to 6 Adyoc, To evayyéAvov.—rov cuTHpoc Hu. Ozov] see 
1 Tim. i. 1; not, assome expositors (Calvin, Wolf) think, Christ, but God.— 
koopa] “do honor to.”—év rac] ver. 9, “in all points,” not“ with all, in 
the eyes of all” (Hofmann).—Chrysostom : ob yap a76 déyuato¢ déyuara, aan’ 
and mpayuatwv Kai Biov Ta JSédyuata Kpivovow oi “HAAnvec’ éotwoav év avroi¢ Kai 
yuvaikec Kai dovdor diWdoKador 1a THe oiKelag avaoTpodye. 

Vy. 11-14. [XX XVII b.] Foundation for the moral precepts given from 
the nature of Christianity: eximium ex evangelii medulla motivum 
inseritur (Bengel).—Chrysostom ! and others refer ver. 11 (yap) only to the 
exhortation to slaves which immediately precedes. It is more correct, 
however, to refer it to the whole sum of moral precepts, given from ver. 
1 onwards (so, too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann).—éredavy yap 4 xaptc Tov 
Ooi] éxepavy (see il. 4) is used of the sun in Acts xxvii. 20. Possibly 
Paul is speaking here with this figure in-mind (comp. Isa. ix. 2, Ix. 1; 
Luke i. 79), as Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee suppose; but pos- 
sibly, also, the expression simply means that the yapic rov Ocov, formerly 
hidden in God, has come forth from concealment and become manifest 
and visible.—) yapi¢ tov Ocov] The old writers on dogma give to this 
expression, which denotes the absolute ground of the work of redemp- 
tion, too special a reference to Christ’s incarnation.2. It need hardly be 
said that he is speaking here not simply of a revelation of the divine 
grace by teaching, but also of its appearance in act, viz. in the act of redemp- 
tion —To define the yap more accurately, there is added: owrjpio¢ raow 
avéporow] not: “as bringing salvation” (de Wette, van Oosterzee). This 
would make cwr#pioc here the main point, which from the context it can- 
not be; the main point is not given till tadebovca. Lwrfpio¢ is rather an 
adjective qualifying the substantive ydpic: “ there appeared the grace 
bringing salvation to all men.” With the Rec.  cwrfpwe this construction 
is beyond doubt.— raow avOpdroc] does not depend on éegdvy, but on 
swthpioc. Matthies is not intelligible in regarding it as dependent on both.’ 
—The emphasis laid on the universality of the salvation, as in 1 Tim. i. 
4 and other passages of the Pastoral Epistles, is purely Pauline. 

Ver. 12. Iadebovea juac, va «.7.2.] On this the chief emphasis is laid. 
By zawdetovca the apostle makes it clear that “the grace of God has a 
paedagogic purpose” (Heydenreich). Here, as also elsewhere in the N. 
T., madevew does not simply mean “ educate,” but “educate by disci- 


\TIoAAnv mapa TOV oiKEeT@Y amatTHGas THY 
apeTHv, amayer Kat THY aitiav dcxatiav, de Hv 
OpeiAovat ToLovTOL Eivar ot oiKéTat. 

2Oecumenius: 
Theodoret: rovrov xapiv évnvOpwmycev Oo po- 
veyevns TOU Meo vids: iva k.7.A. 


H mwETa GapKos emdnuia; 


8 Wiesinger translates: “ for there appeared 
the grace of God which brings salvation to all 
men;” and on the construction of maow 
avOpwrors he afterwards says: “according to 
the context, it can only be construed with 
owTyptos.” 


. 


CHAP, IU. 11-13. 301 


plinary correction.” Hence Luther is not incorrect in translating: “and 
chastises us.” This reference is to be noted here, as is shown by the next 
words: apvycduevor «.7.4. “Iva does not indicate the purpose here, but the 
object to be supplied, for rad. is not subjective, but objective; the sentence 
beginning with iva might also have been expressed by the infinitive; comp. 
1 Tim. i. 20; not therefore “ in order that. we,” but “ that we.” On this use 
of iva, see Winer, pp. 314 ff. LE. T. pp. 334 ff. |'—dpvyoduevor] see i. 16: 
“denying,” é.e. renouncing, abandoning.—r7jv acéBeav] is not equivalent 
to eidwAodatpeiav Kal Ta rovypa déyyata (Theophylact), but is the opposite of 
evoéBevav: the behavior of man, ungodly, estranged from God, of which 
idolatry is only one side.—xai rag Koopsxag éxuuiac] koopuxdc Only here 
and in Heb. ix. 1, but there in another connection. The coop. exOuuiat 
are not “desires or lusts referring to the earthly, transient world” (first 
edition of this commentary ; so, too, Wiesinger), but “ the lusts belonging 
to the xécyoc, i.e. to the world estranged from God,” which, indeed, is the 
same thing (so, too, van Oosterzee). Kindred conceptions are found 
éxtyuia capxéc, Gal. v. 15; Eph. ii. 8; avépdrov éeriBrpiat, 1 Pet. iv. 2— 
cudpévac Kat dixaiwg Kai evoeBOc Chowuev] see 1.8 (cdgpova, dixaor, bqov). This 
denotes the life of Christian morality in three directions. Immediately 
after éx@uuia we have the opposing conception cugpdvec, which expresses 
self-control. Ac«aiwc denotes generally right conduct such as the divine 
law demands, having special reference here, as in i. 8, to duty towards 
one’s neighbor. EiceBac (opposite of daoéBerav) denotes holiness in thought 
and act.—Even the older expositors find in the collocation of these three 
ideas an expression for the whole sum of duties. Wolf: optime illi res 
instituunt, qui per 7d eiceBac officia adversus Deum, per 70 dixaiwg Officia 
adv. proximum, per 7d cwgpdve¢ vero illa adv. hominem ipsum indicari 
existimant; still it might be doubtful whether Paul regarded the ideas as 
so sharply distinct from each other.—év 7@ vov aiovc] Paul adds this to 
remind Titus that for the Christian'there is another and future life towards 
which his glance is directed even in this ;—still these words cannot be 
construed with pode xouevo. 

Ver. 13. Mpocdeyouevor tiv pakapiay éArida] The strange collocation of 
mpoodey. and éAnida is found also in Acts xxiv. 15: éArida Eyov .. . Hv Kal 
abtot ovtot mpoodéxovtar; SO, too, in Gal. v. 5: éArida . . . arexdexoueba. The 
reason of it is that é4méc not only denotes actively the hope, but also 
passively the thing hoped for, the subject of the hope; comp. Col. 1. O24) 
Aric ) amoxeimévn év T. ovpavoic; comp., too, Rom. viii. 24.—axapiav] Paul 
thus describes the é%xida in so far as the expectation of it blesses the 
believer. Wolf wrongly interprets 7 ax. éxic as equivalent to y éArilo- 
uévn paxapiorne.—This éAri¢ is further defined by the epexegesis: Kal érupa- 
vetav the d6Enc Tov peyadov Ocod Kai owrypoc juav "I. Xpiorov] [XXXVII c. 
pages 307-311.] According to Hofmann, the adjective paxapiav as well as 


1 Wiesinger translates: “educating us,that proper signification, however, tva does not 
we... live holily,” but thinks that tva is to give the aim, but the purpose. If it be taken 
be retained in its proper signification as in this sense here, we cannot but translate if 
denoting the aim of the maiSevma. In its “in order that.” 


302 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


the genitive rjc dégy¢ «.7.2. belongs to both substantives, to éAzida and to 
éxipdvecav, because, as he thinks, 7 paxapia éAzic is not a conception com- 
plete in itself. But Rom. xv. 4 shows this to be wrong. The genitive | 
could only be construed with the two substantives by giving it a different 
reference in each case. Hofmann, indeed, maintains that this presents 
no difficulty, as it occurs elsewhere; but he is wrong in his appeal to 
Rom. xv. 4 (comp. Meyer on the passage) and to 1 Pet. i. 2 and 2 Pet. iii. 
11 (comp. my commentary on the passages).—Beyond doubt, the érigaveia | 
tie J6En¢ «.7.4. denotes Christ’s second coming (1 Tim. vi. 14); it may, 
however, be asked whether peyd4ov Gcot is an independent subject or an 
attribute of ’Ijco. Xp. The older expositors are of the latter opinion ; the 
orthodox even appealed to this passage against the Arians. Ambrosius, 
however, distinguishes here between Christus and Deus Pater.! Erasmus, 
too, says: simul cum Patre apparebit eadem gloria conspicuus Dominus 
ac Servator noster J. Chr.; and Bengel says of Oeod simply: referri potest 
ad Christum. Among more recent expositors, Flatt, Mack, Matthies, 
Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, adopt the former view; while de 
Wette, Plitt, Winer, pp. 123 f. [E. T. p. 180], adopt the latter. Heyden- 
reich leaves the question undecided.? It cannot be decided on purely 
grammatical grounds, for wey. Oeot and owrypo¢ ju. may be two attributes 
referring to ’Iyo. Xpiorov; still it may be also that owrqp. juadv "Ijo. Xp. is a 
subject distinct from yey. Oeov, even although only one article is used.* 
The question can only be answered by an appeal to N. T. usage, both for 
this passage and others like it: 2 Pet.i.1; Jude 4: 2 Thess.i.12. In 
2 Pet. i. 11, iii. 18, the unity of the subject is beyond doubt. The following 
points may be urged in favor of distinguishing two subjects :—(1) In no single 
passage is Oed¢ connected directly with "Ijcotc Xpioré¢ as an attribute (see 
my commentary on 2 Pet. i. 1); i.e. there never occurs in the N. T. the 
simple construction 6 O2d¢ juav "Ij. Xp., or 4 Oed¢ "Inoot¢ Xp., or "Ino. Xp. 
6 @ed¢ yuov, Whereas xipio¢g and cwrf#p are often enough construed in this 


.1The words of Ambrosius are: hance esse 
dicit beatam spem credentium, qui exspect- 
ant ‘adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod reve- 
lari=habet judice Christo, in quo Dei patris 
videbitur potestas et gloria, ut fidei suae 
praemium consequantur. Ad hoe enim rede- 
mit nos Christus, ut, puram yvitam sectantes, 
repleti bonis operibus, regni Dei haeredes 
esse possimus. 

2Heydenreich wrongly supposes that S0éa 
here is the glory which God and Christ will 
give to believers. 

’Hofmann wrongly asserts that because 
gwT7pos yuav stands before "Incod Xprotov, 
and with peyéAov @eod under one and the 
same article, therefore nua@v must belong to 
Heyadov Beod as much as to owrpos, and pe- 
yaAou to swrnpos as much as to Veod, and both 
together to "Incod Xpiorod as predicate. 
There are instances enough of two distinct 


subjects standing under one article only, and 
we cannot see why these instances should not 
be quoted here. Itcannot indeed be said that 
gwtTnpos nuav “I. Xp. needs no article; for, 
although owrt7p as well as cvptos may be con- 
strued with I. Xp. without the article, still 
there is no instance of kxvpros nu@v being 
without the article when construed with ‘I. 
Xp. But the article before pey. @cod may, 
according to N. T. usage, be also referred to 
gwrtipos “I. Xp. without making it necessary 
to assume a unity of subject; comp. Buttm. 
pp. 84 ff. [E. T. 97, 100]; Winer, pp. 118 ff. [E. 
1. p. 124 ff.]. Hofmann is no less wrong in 
what he says regarding the necessity of the 
reference of weyadov and of jxeay. Paul, in- 
deed, might have written: tod ey. @eod Kai 
"Inc. Xp. Tod owripos duav, but he could also 
express the same thought in the way he has 
written it. 


CHAP. II. 13. 303 
way. (2) The collocation of God (@eéc) and Christ as two subjects is 
quite current, not only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. i. 1, 2, v. 21, vi. 13; 
2 Tim. i. 2, iv. 1; Tit. i. 4), but also in all the epistles of the N. T., Pauline 
or not, so much so, that when in some few passages the turn of the expres- 
sion is such as to make Geé¢ refer grammatically to Christ also, these 
passages have to be explained in accordance with the almost invariable 
meaning of the expression. (3) The addition of the adjective peyaaov 
indicates that @cod is to be taken as an independent subject, especially 
when it is observed how Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy uses similar 
epithets to exalt God’s glory ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 17, iv. 10, vi. 15, 16, especially 
i. 11; w ddEa Tov paxapiov Oeov. It is true the expression 6 péyac Oed¢ is 
not found in the N. T., except in the Rec. of Rev. xix. 17, but it occurs 
frequently in the O. T.: Deut. vi. 21, x. 17; Neh. ix. 32; Dan. ii. 45, oe 4) 
—For the unity of the subject only one reason can be urged with any 
show of force, viz. that elsewhere the word éridveca is only used in refer- 
ence to Christ; but Erasmus long ago pointed out that it does not stand 
here érp. tov Oeov, but rH¢ d65y¢ Tov @cov. Wiesinger, too, has to admit 
“that, according to passages like Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38, Christ 
appears in the glory of the Father and at the same time in His own glory 
(Matt. xxv. 31), and His appearance may therefore be called the appear- 
ance both of God’s glory and of His own.” Wiesinger, indeed, tries to 
weaken this admission by remarking that in reality itis Christ Himself 
who will appear év dé6fy tov tarpoc, and not God, that therefore 6é&a would 
be construed with the genitives in quite different relations, and that on 
grammatico-logical principles it must mean either é owrype yuov Iy0. 
Xpiot}, OY Tov curhpoc juav év tH JdSy Tov ueyadov cov (Matthies). But his 
remark is wrong. Even if the subjects be distinct, the genitive tov pey. 
@cov stands in the same relation to r7¢ dé57¢ as does the genitive owr7jpo¢ 
ju. I. Xp. Nor is the form of expression necessary on which Matthies 
insists, because in the N. T. God and Christ are often enough connected 
simply by «ai without marking their mutual relations. Wiesinger further 
remarks that no reason whatever can be found in the context for connect- 
ing Ocdéc here as well as Christ with the éxdveca, but he has manifestly 
overlooked the ‘relation of mpoodexé6uevor thy exidaverav THe ddsyC TOU MEY. 
Gcon to Exedary % yapic Tov Oeov.2—Chrysostom rightly says: 
évravba éripavelac’ Kai yap elo dio" 7H bev mpérepa yapitoc, } dé devtépa avTaro- 
décewc. The yapec of God has already appeared ; the déga of God appears 
only at the day of completion, when Christ is made manifest in His 66§a, 
which is the éé¢a of God. Though not so directly as it would have been 
if the subjects were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favor of 


Ovo deikvuow 


1Usteri (Paul. Lehrb. 5th ed. p. 326) says: 
“God the Father did not need the extolling 
epithet wéyas;” to which it may be replied: 
“Did Christ need such an epithet?”—If Hof- 
mann be right in remarking that Christ is 
not 6 @eds, which is the subject-name of the 
Father, then it is very questionable that Paul 


would call Him 6 péyas Geds. 

2Van Oosterzee has advanced nothing new 
in support of the view disputed above. The 
appeal to 2 Pet. i. 11 is of no use, unless it be 
proved in passages beyond dispute that cds 
like xvptos, is joined with *Incods Xprotos ag 
an attribute. 


304 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


the truth of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity..—Matthies suggests that in 
the expression tov weyddov Oeovd there is an allusion to the great Zeus wor- 
shiped in Crete, but that is more than improbable.—The genitive cwrjpo¢ 
is not dependent on ézigaveray, but on rie déEyce. In 1 Pet. iv. 13 also 
Christ’s second coming is called the revelation of His dééa. 

Ver. 14. The thought in this verse is very closely related to ver. 12: 
rawWevovoa judc, iva k.7.A., as it shows how far the appearance of the grace 
of God exhorts us to deny aoéBea «.7.A. In construction, however, it is 
connected with owrjpo¢ ju. I. Xp.—éd¢ Mwxev éavtév] comp. Gal. i. 4, equiv- 
alent to zapédoxev éav7dv, Eph. v. 25. The conception of the voluntary 
submission to death is not contained in éav7év (Heydenreich) so much as 
in the whole expression.—izép jjudv] is not equivalent to av7i jor, but: 
“for us, on our behalf;” the notion of arti, however, is not excluded 
(Matt. xx. 28). The purpose of this submission is given in the next words: 
iva AutpooyTat juac] Avtpovoba: “ set free by means of a ransom.” In Luke 
xxiv. 21 (comp. too, 1 Mace. iv. 11, and other passages in the Apocrypha) 
the reference to ransom falls quite into the background ; but in 1 Pet. i. 
18, 19, where, as here, the redemption through Christ is spoken of, the 
tiwuov aiua Of Christ is called the ransom. _The same reference is indicated 
here by the previous édexev éavtév, comp. 1 Tim. ii. 6. The middle form 
includes the reference which in the next clause is expressed by éav76.— 
and maonc avouiac| “from all unlawfulness.” ’Avoyia is regarded as the 
power from which Christ has redeemed us; it is opposed to cudpédveg Kai 
dikaiwe Kai evoeBoc Cav: “the unrighteousness in which the law of God is 
unheeded.” It is wrong to understand by dvouia “not only the sin, but 
also the punishment incurred by sin” (Heydenreich), or only the latter ; 
comp. Rom. vi. 19, 2 Cor. vi. 14, and especially 1 John iii. 4: 7 auapria éoriv 
4 avouia.—kai Kabapion éavtS Aadv repiobovov] positive expression of the 
thought which was expressed negatively in the previous clause. De 
Wette and Wiesinger without reason supply juac as the object of xabapion, 
the object is Aadv repiobotov.—repiobaiog (az. Aey. In N. T.). Chrysostom 
wrongly interprets it by éeAeyuévoc, ovdév Eyav Kxowdv mpd¢ Tod¢e Aotrodg ; 
Theodoret more correctly by oixeioc ; so, too, Beza: peculiaris, and Luther : 
““@ people for a possession.” The phrase Aad_e repiotovoc belongs to the O. 
T., and isa translation of the Hebrew m0 Dy, Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, 
xiv. 2, xxvi. 18, LX X.; in the church of the N. T. the promise made to 
the people of Israel is fulfilled;comp.1 Pet. ii. 9: Aad¢ cig repiroinow.— - 
éaur® corresponds with Avtpdoyrac axé. The sentence is pregnantly 
expressed, and its meaning is: “that He by the purifying power of His 
death might acquire for Himself (éav7) a people for a possession.””—The 
moral character of the Aade mepiobc. is declared by the words in apposi- 
tion, CyAwrAv Kaddv épywv: accensum studio bonorum operum.—De Wette 
is inaccurate in saying that the apostle is speaking here not of reconcilia- 


1Calvin: Verum brevius et certius repellere gloriae revelationem, ac si diceret, ubi 
licet Arianos, quia Paulus, de revelatione Christus apparuerit, tune patefactum nobis 
magni Dei locutus, mox Christum adjunxit, iri divinae gloriae magnitudinem. 
ut sciremus, in’ hujus persona fore illam 


NOTES. 305 


tion, but only of moral purification. Wiesinger rightly asks: “ What else 
are we to understand by éoxev tavrov brép quov than the reconciling 
death?” But de Wette is so far right, that reconciliation is not made the 
chief point here, but rather, as often in the N. T., e.g. 1 Pet. i. 17, 18, the 
design is mentioned for which Christ suffered the death of reconciliation ; 
comp. Luther’s exposition of the second article of faith. 

Ver. 15. Taira (viz. these moral precepts, see ver. 1, with the reasons 
given for them, vv. 11-14) Adder Kai mapaKare kai édeyxe] The distinction 
between these words is correctly given by Heydenreich. Aateiv denotes 
simple teaching, rapaka2. pressing exhortation, é@éyy. solemn admonition 
to those who neglect these duties. ‘The theoretic, the paraenetic-practi- 
cal, and the polemic aspects of the preaching of the gospel are combined ” 
(Matthies).—era raone émitayie] According to 1 Cor. vii. 6, ovyyvoun is the 
opposite of éxray7 ; this clause therefore enjoins that Titus is not to leave 
it to the free choice of the church whether his exhortations shall be 
obeyed or not, but to deliver them as commands. De Wette translates: 
“with all recommendation,” which is right in sense; still éxitay# is not 
properly recommendation but command, and it is therefore better to say, 
“with entire full command.” —With this the final words are closely con- 
nected: pundeig cov mepippovelta] Tepuppoverv (ar. Aey.); properly : “ consider 
something on all sides;” then: “think beyond, despise,” equivalent to 
karagpovetv ; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 12. Luther is right in sense: “let no man 
despise thee,” viz. by not receiving thy teachings, exhortations, and 
admonitions as commands, and by thinking lightly of them. There is 
nothing to suggest that Titus is to conduct himself so that no one may be 
right in despising him. 


Nores py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXXVI. Vv. 1-8. 


(a) The passage which now follows, and which has reference to the exhortations 
and instructions to be given by Titus to men and women, according as they were 
older or younger—Huther says, to the members of families, but the words may be 
regarded as more general in their application,—is opened by a direction addressed 
to him to speak the things befitting “ the healthful teaching.” As related to what 
goes before, this direction forms a contrast to the course pursued by the false 
teachers (dé). As related to what follows, it finds its special application in the 
several lines which are mentioned. Evidently, as thus applied, the practical 
bearing of the didacxaiia, is what the Apostle has in mind. Very probably it may 
be because of this fact, that the peculiar expression & mpérer TH by. 516. is used.— 
(b) In suggesting the exhortations which Titus should give to the older men and 
the older women in general, it is noticeable that Paul bids him urge upon all of 
them such actions, and the possession of such qualities, in the main, as in 1 Tim. 
he sets forth as proper to be required in presbyters and in the class of widows to 
whom he specially refers. Thus, in 1 Tim., the presbyter-bishop is to be vyparvos, 
oddpur, and, in Tit. i. 8, 9, holding fast to and able to exhort in the tycav. d10aoK. 
The women, on the other hand, who are alluded to—the wives of the deacons or, 

20 


306 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


if it be so, the deaconesses—are called upon to be “7 didBodor, ceuvat, vygddsor, and 
those widows who are to receive support from the church (1 Tim. iv. 3 ff.) are 
required to have exhibited virtues in their past career, which are preparatory in 
their nature to those demanded of the older women here. These facts tend to 
show how completely the Apostle’s mind, in all the suggestions as to the officials of 
the church, or those in any more public station among the body of believers, was 
upon the moral and Christian qualifications which were needed, and how very 
alight, as yet, was the development of the idea of government, authority or office 
in the churches. The latest epistles of Paul have scarcely anything, if indeed 
anything, more in the line of the latter idea, than the earlier ones. It is worthy 
of notice, also, that, in 1 Tim., where he brings out these moral qualifications, etc., 
as necessary for bishops and deacons, and for widows who were to be placed upon 
the list of widows, he simply says, with respect to the older and younger men and 
women, that Timothy should treat them as he would treat parents, or as he would 
treat brothers and sisters; but here, on the contrary, not dwelling so largely on the 
case of persons holding public station, he deals fully with the demands of the 
Christian teaching on al/ men and women, according as they are old or young. 
This, again, is suggestive as to how widely removed the Apostle’s thoughts were 
from the notions of office and authority, which arose in later times——(c) On the 
word kataorjuarte (ver. 3) see Note VII. c, above, 1 Tim. ii. 9. The thing required 
of all women in the church-meetings, in that passage, is in this place demanded— 
so far as Kataorjuate here corresponds with xatacrey there—of the elder women at 
all times. katdotyua has, however, a somewhat more internal reference, as we 
may not improbably hold, and perhaps a more extended meaning, than kataoto?.7— 
(d) The reading oixovpyot¢ (ver. 5), workers at home, is so largely supported by the 
best authorities, that it must be adopted as the true text. Tisch., Lachm., Treg., 
W.&H.,, Alf. adopt it. With either reading, oixoupyot¢ or oikovpot¢ (keepers at home), 
the contrast with mepiepyéuevae Tac oixiac of 1 Tim. v. 13 can hardly be mistaken. 
The ‘va clause which follows is one indication, among many, that the evil-speak- 
ing on the part of those outside of the Church, in case the Christian women 
violated the sentiment of the age and country in regard to the proper position of 
their sex, was a chief reason for the Apostle’s urgency in his exhortations as to this 
matter. The exhortation to the younger men is comprehended in the word 


- owppoveiv, but this seems here to be, in connection with the various other terms of 


-the preceding verses, a word which is intended to be comprehensive in its mean- 
-ing.—(e) To the end of adding the greatest force to his exhortations to others, 
Titus is urged in vv. 7, 8 to exhibit the characteristics, in his own living, which 
heasks them, according to their position, to manifest in theirs; and the same thing” 
is urged to the end that those who were adversaries, whether Jewish or Gentile, 
may not be able to say anything evil of the life or action of the believers, and 
thus may be put toshame. The emphasis in the position of 7 d:dacxadia (ver. 7) 
is, not improbably, that of contrast to épywv, but it may also be connected with the 
general prominence which is given in the Past. Epp. to the healthful teaching, as 
opposed to the present and threatening errors. 


XXXVII. Vv. 9-15. 


(a) The exhortation to slaves, which in 1 Tim. is given by itself (vi. 1, 2), is 
here placed at the end of a series of exhortations to different classes, as it is in 


NOTES. 307 


some of the other epistles. But it is thrown into an especial prominence by the 
fact that the closing words of it—the iva clause of ver. 10—are made the intro- 
duction to the very important declaration of the fundamental Christian truth 
which is set forth in the following verses. These verses, in their immediate 
grammatical connection (yap), and by reason of the word owrfpio¢ (ver. 12) as 
related to owr7jpoc (ver. 10), are to be joined with what is said about the slaves. 
But, in their wider application, as a reason for the course of life and conduct indi- 
cated, they extend in their force over all the verses from the beginning of the 
chapter; and, in themselves, they contain an independent and comprehensive 
statement. ‘Tisch. and several of the leading commentators make a paragraph at 
ver. 11, joining vv. 9, 10 with vv. 1-8. W.& H. make a half-paragraph at this 
point. Not improbably, this is the correct division of the passage. Treg., how- 
ever, unites vv. 9,10 with the following verses, beginning the new paragraph 
with ver. 9, and R.V. unites all the verses, from ver. 1 to ver. 14 inclusive, in 
one paragraph.—(b) In the passage vv. 11-14, as proved by the yap and its con- 
nection with what precedes, the chief idea, as related to the context, is to be 
found in the iva clauses—primarily, in the first iva clause, apvyoauevor . . . Cowper 
év T@ vuv ai@v, and secondarily, in the second ta clause, Avtpoonta .. . Epywr. 
The emphasis, however, which is given to these ideas is, that the very object of 
the manifestation of the grace of God, and of the gift which, as the result of that 
grace, Christ made of Himself, was that the ends thus indicated might be realized. 
That which lay at the foundation of the purpose and work of God, which Chris- 
tianity proclaims; that, also, for which Christianity takes its followers under its 
educating and disciplinary influence, and bids them look forward to the hope and 
glory of the future, is that they may become a peculiar people zealous of good 
works. The beginning and the ending of the whole doctrine of Christianity, thus, 
is the divine life in the soul; and, because it is so, the exhortations given to every 
believer, according to his own particular station, age, duty, office, is to let that life- 
principle work out into his character and conduct. This it is which makes the 
grace of God owr7pio¢ and gives to God Himself and Christ the title of cory judr. 

(c) Ver. 13. The question as to the construction of the words Tov peyddov Beov 
kai owtypog yuav "Iyoov Xpictov (T. R.), or Xprorod "Inoov (Tisch. 8, W. & H. 
text), has been much discussed. According to R. V. marg., A. R. V. text, and 
many commentators, these words should be rendered of the great God .and our 
Saviour Jesus Christ; according to R. V. text, A.R. V. marg., and many com- 
mentators, on the other hand, they should be rendered of our great God and 
Saviour Jesus Christ. In the latter case, the name 4ed¢ is given to Christ; in the 
former, it is not thus given. The limits of this note will only allow a very brief 
presentation of the arguments, on both sides, which seem to be especially worthy 
of being considered. 

A. The grounds on which the latter view of the construction and meaning is 
maintained are as follows:—I. The general rule that where two appellative words 
are united by «ai under a common article, they belong to one subject. As both 
6eé¢ and owryp are, in themselves and originally, appellative words, as they are 
thus united under one article, and as they are followed by ’I. Xp., with which, if used 
as appellatives, they would naturally be connected, it must be inferred that it was 
the writer’s intention thus to connect them.—1. To this argument it is answered, 
first, that the words @e00 and cwr7jpoc, as here used, are not appellatives, but proper 
names, i.e., nouns which, though originally common nouns, had become by usage 


308 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


quasi-proper names, and that, like proper nouns generally, they may be joined under 
one article whenever the two persons are conceived of as standing in a common 
relation to the matter under consideration. They are thus conceived of here, it is 
claimed. This answer is not to be regarded as satisfactory, for, though owr#p ap- 
parently came to be used as a proper name in this way, at a later time, it cannot 
be affirmed that the apostolic authors so used it. A careful examination of the 
subject, some years ago, convinced the writer of this note that there is no N.T. 
passage which will support such an affirmation, and he is glad to find himself sus- 
tained in this opinion by the late Prof. Ezra Abbot, a scholar as fair-minded as he 
was eminent, who (though holding, on other grounds, that Geov is not to be referred 
to Christ) says, “I find no sufficient proof of his [Alford’s] statement that owr#p had 
become in the N. T. ‘a quasi proper name.’ ”—2. To this argument it is answered, 
secondly, that 7u0v which is joined with owr7jpo¢ serves the purpose of defining the 
latter word, and thus renders the repetition of the article unnecessary. An ex- 
amination of all the passages in which the word owr#p is used in the N. T. will, it is 
believed, show that the article is added wherever owr#p is found with 7uév, unless 
some other and sufficient reason for its omission is apparent. In other words, owr7p 
nav does not seem to occur, as Tpdcwrov avTov may occur (instead of Td tpdcwr7. air), 
because the person cannot be supposed to have more than one face. It is, also, to be 
observed that such an omission of the articie, on such a ground, is less naturally 
to be expected in a compound phrase of the character which we find here, than in 
simple phrases, like 4e0¢ owrip 7juav. The kindred expression in 2 Pet.i. 1, where 
the words are Tov Geov judv Kai owripoc ’I. Xp., and owrypoc has, accordingly, no 
juav connected with it, may, also, have its due weight as bearing upon this point.— 
3. To this argument it is answered, thirdly, that the omission of the article is owing 
to the fact that the appositional word precedes the proper name. It is believed 
that, with reference to this point as well as to those already mentioned, the 
passages in which owr7p is used in the N. T., if examined, will show that there is 
no justification for this position, and especially none as bearing against the general 
rule in such a compound phrase.—4. To this argument it is answered, fourthly, that 
the article may be omitted in this case, as in Phil. iii. 20, because the writer 
wishes to “fix attention on the quality, or character, or peculiar relation expressed 
by the appellative.” As in Phil. iii. 20 Paul says, “we wait for a Saviour, the 
' Lord Jesus Christ,” cwrjpa azexdex6ueha xipiov I. Xp. so here he may intend to 
‘say, “of the great God and a Saviour of us, Jesus.Christ.” The want of parallelism 
‘between the two cases, however, will be observed, it is believed, by the careful reader, 
and the writer of this note can scarcely doubt that -it will be generally admitted, 
not only that the cases are different from each other, but also that the proposed 
rendering of the present passage is contrary to the analogy of all passages in the 
N. T., which are similar to it, and to all the probabilities which such a compound 
phrase suggests—5. It is answered to this argument, finally, that language is not 
bound by absolute laws, which admit of no deviation-from their utmost strictness; 
that the only object of the article is to give definiteness, and, where this is evident 
enough without it, a writer may trust to the intelligence of his readers; and that 
we find such expressions in the N.T. as trove twAovvtag Kai ayopatovrec (Matt. xxi. 
12), where the persons described as buying and selling are manifestly not the 
same. This is, no doubt, to be admitted; but the phrase now in question is not 
parallel with that in Matt. xxi. 12, or similar ones. The N.T. writers do not 
speak of God and Christ in this way, except where the words Geé¢ and Xpiord¢ are 


NOTES. 309 


proper names (as e.g. Paul and Barnabas, Acts xv. 22, are spoken of in a united 
capacity by the use of the words t@ HavAw kai Bapvafg, as contrasted with Acts 
xy. 2, where they are mentioned in a more individual relation, and 7 II. kai 7@ B. 
is the expression employed), and in the phrase Tov Geov Kai kupiov "I. Xp., in respect 
to which it may be noticed that «vpco¢ is often used as a proper name, while cwryp 
is not. 

II. The fact that the relative pronoun in ver. 14 is in the singular number, and 
manifestly refers to Christ, shows that there is only one person—namely Jesus 
Christ—spoken of in ver. 13.—It is said in reply to this argument, that, after 
alluding to two persons, it is perfectly allowable for a writer to add a relative 
clause which refers only to the latter. Gal. i. 3, 4 is cited as a parallel case, 
where tov dévro¢ x.7.A. follows the words “from God the Father and our Lord 
Jesus Christ,” but evidently belongs only with ’Iyc. Xp. 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6 is, also, 
referred to. In the latter passage, however, the words are ei¢ yap Oedc, ei¢ Kai 
eoityg .... Xp. "Ijoovce, 6 dove éavrdv avtidvtpov, and the construction of the 
sentence varies from that of the verses before us in just that particular (kai coming 
after, not before, the second ¢ic, and meaning also), which makes it perfectly clear 
that 6 dov¢ must refer to Xp. ‘I only. In the former case, the two are plainly 
distinguished by the word tatpé¢ added to @eov; the sentence is one in which 
kupiov is used, which is a quasi-proper name, as ow77p is not; and there is no 
allusion to anything (such as éri@aveva of the present passage) which may, by any 
possibility, be regarded as having an exclusive reference to Christ. 

III. The word éripaveca is one which is always used of Christ in the N. T., and never 
of God the Father—To this argument it is answered, that the expression here 
used is not éripaveca, but éripavera rij¢ dé; that the coming of Christ is repre- 
sented in Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38 (comp. Luke ix. 26) as being év rH d6&y Tov 
matpoc avtov; that in 1 Tim. vi. 14-16 God is spoken of as “showing” the 
éripavera of Christ, and words setting forth the glory of God are added; that 
Jewish writers often called any extraordinary display of divine power an éri@avera 
of God, and that it was very natural in these sentences, and in the development of 
the thought expressed in them, to speak of the ér@aveca of the glory of God as the end 
of that great plan which, in its beginning, was an émidaveva of His grace (éteddvy 
7 Xapic Tov Geov).—That the future éx<aveva denotes an appearing of Christ, accord- 
ing to the N. T. writers, cannot be questioned. There is, no doubt, a certain 
probability arising from this fact that the reference of this word is in all cases, 
and so in this passage, wholly to Him, and this probability may, perhaps, be 
regarded as somewhat strengthened. in the verses before us, by the fact that the 
following relative clause is descriptive of Him only. But the candid scholar will 
be disposed to admit that this argument has been pressed too strongly by many 
writers, and that its force is greatly weakened, if not, indeed, entirely set aside, by 
the considerations mentioned. 

IV. Arguments derived (x) from the addition of the adjective yeya/ov to Gov, no 
instance of which occurs elsewhere in the N. T.—that its use would be unnecessary 
and antecedently improbable, if applied to God the Father, or that, as an adjective, 
it must most naturally be understood as belonging to @eov and cwrypoc, and thus, 
like the article, as uniting the two as appellatives of Christ ; or (y) from the fact 
that Aadv tepiobavov properly, and according to the O. T. conception, means the 
people of God, God’s peculiar possession—that the use of this expression, therefore, 
carries with it the implication that the relative é¢ must include in its antecedent Geow, 


we 
310 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


and that Christ must, accordingly, be here called God,—must be regarded as of 
comparatively little weight. The use of adjectives as descriptive of God is some- 
what characteristic of the Past. Epp., and, although this particular adjective, uéyac, 
does not occur in connection with 46g elsewhere in Paul’s writings, or in the N. 
T., it is found frequently in the O. T., e.g. Deut. x. 17; Neh. ix. 32. For 
adjectives and descriptive words used with 6e¢é¢ in the Past. Epp., comp. 1 Tim. i. 
11, iv.10, Tit. i. 2,1 Tim. i. 1, Tit. ii. 3. As for the expression Aadv zep., on the 
other hand, the relation of Christ to the Church, in the N. T., is such, that the 
transference of such a phrase from its O. T. reference to the people of God to this new 
and peculiar reference could hardly be considered strange, even on the part of an 
author who might always be disposed to distinguish God and Christ by the names 
Ge6¢ and Xpcoréc, and never to apply the former name to our Lord. 

B. The grounds on which the interpretation of the words which make them 
distinguish between Christ and God—“ the great God, and our Saviour Jesus 
Christ ”—is maintained, are the following:—I. The fact that, though Paul uses 
the word eé¢ more than five hundred times, he never employs it as descriptive of 
Christ.—On this point, the reader is referred to note cii. by the present writer, 
page 396 ff. of Meyer’s Com. on Romans, Am. ed., and an article by the same, in 
the Journal of the Society of Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis for 1881. 

II. The fact mentioned by Huther, that we do not find the word @eé¢ connected 
directly with ’I. Xp. as an attribute—in such a phrase, for example, as 6 ed¢ I, Xp. 
—These two arguments must, both of them, be regarded as worthy of very serious 
consideration. It is to be remarked, however, that it was altogether in accordance 
with what might naturally be expected of the apostolic writers, that they should 
prevailingly speak of Christ as man, Saviour, Lord, ete. and only rarely as God. 
Even John speaks of Him as God only twice in his Gospel, and, possibly, once in 
his first Epistle. It was only in*harmony with this general usage, also, that they 
should be indisposed to employ such phrases as 6 Ged¢ juav ’I. Xp., and that, in case 
of referring to the deity of Christ at all, they should make use of expressions like 
the present, in which His relation to men as their Saviour is added, or like that 
in Rom. ix. 5, where the declaration that He is Gedg is associated with a statement 
of what He was kata capxa. It cannot be too emphatically insisted upon, or too 
carefully borne in mind, that the belief of the apostles that Christ was (eéc need 
not necessarily have led them to declare it, often, in their writings, or even to 
_ state it anywhere in the particular form 6 Ged¢ "Iyoot¢g Xpiaréc. 

III. The frequency with which God and Christ in their distinction from each 
other, are brought together in the N. T., and by Paul in his Epistles, as having a 
common relation to men in the way of grace and the plan of salvation, makes it 
probable that the same sort of union of the two is intended here, and not a pre- 
sentation of Christ as Himself 6eé¢. The force of this argument, it is claimed, is 
increased by the fact, that such a uniting of God and Christ, as two subjects, occurs 
in several places in the Past. Epistles, and—in connection with the repeated pre- 
sentation of the idea of God as working through Christ—may be regarded as even 
somewhat peculiarly characteristic of them. Especially, it is urged that there is 
a very striking correspondence between 1 Tim. ii. 5 f. and this passage.—The answer 
to this argument must be found in the consideration that the doctrine of the 
divinity of Christ, when it affirms that He is called @eéc, only affirms that He is 
called thus in some passages. It claims, not that He is generally described by 
this name, or that He is not distinguished from God the Father by giving the 


NOTES. 311 


name 9eé¢ to the Father, and «ipio¢ to Him, in most places where they are both 
referred to. All that it asserts is that, as Christ in the view of the N. T. writers 
is God, it is natural that they should sometimes speak of Him as Gedc, and that, 
this being both possible and natural, the several passages should be interpreted 
according to grammatical rules and the suggestions of the context. 

IV. The evident reference of the word Geod in ver. 11 to God the Father, it is 
claimed, makes it altogether improbable that Oeov in ver. 13 has any other 
reference.—Undoubtedly, this position would be the true one in most sentences. 
The phenomena of the present sentence, however, it is answered, remove this 
improbability, and render it apparent to the reader that the word 6eov, which 
denotes the Father in the former verse, denotes Christ in the latter. 

The acceptance or rejection of the doctrine that Christ is divine will, almost 
necessarily, affect the mind of the student, in some degree, with respect to the 
weight which he gives to the several considerations mentioned and the readiness 
with which he will admit, or refuse to admit, that Geov here is an appellative word. 
The question, however, isone which properly lies within the region of interpreta- 
tion, and is to be determined by grammatical and linguistic probabilities. It is a 
question, as it appears to the writer of this note, which is nearly evenly balanced— 
the strong arguments, on the one side, heing those which are connected with the 
article and the probability that éz:@aveca must limit the whole expression to Christ ; 
the strongest argument, on the other, being the fact that Paul, confessedly on the 
part of all, very rarely applies the word 6e6¢ to Christ—some writers even maintain- 
ing that he never does so. Of the two arguments which are thus mentioned as 
favoring the application to Christ, the force of the first has, in the judgment of 
the writer of this note, been too little regarded by many of the recent commen- 
tators, and that of the second has been given greater weighi by Bp. Ellicott and 
others than it justly merits. On the other hand, the argument pressed upon the 
other side in respect to the use of 6e¢¢ by Paul—when emphasized by the presen- 
tation of numbers, as five hundred compared with two or three—is made to carry 
with it a weight which the mere numbers do not warrant. 

The tendency of recent writers is, apparently, somewhat strongly towards the 
rendering of A. R. V. text, which is also the rendering of A. V. Huther, who 
adopts it, says that “though not so directly as it would have been if the subjects 
were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favor of the truth of the doctrine 
of Christ’s divinity.” Alford, who also adopts this rendering, takes even a stronger 
position, and says, “whichever way taken, the passage is just as important a 
testimony to the divinity of our Saviour.” It is evident that the doctrine does 
not depend on this verse, and is at most only supported by it. The doctrine is 
inwoyen in the N. T, teaching as a whole. 


312 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS, 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. apyaic nat éEovciac] In A C D* E* FG 17, 31, al., Damase. kat és 
wanting, and was therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. It can hardly 
be done without; but, as the «ai is wanting also between the next two words, it 
seems to have been wanting here originally, and to have been inserted later. F 
G have a xai inserted between the verbs——Ver. 2. For undéva, F G have p77; 
but the former is supported alike by suitability to the context and by the weighti- 
est testimony.—Instead of xpadyra (Rec.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., on the authority 
of A GC, etc., adopted here and elsewhere the form zpairyta.—y has, instead of 
évdekvuévoug mpaityra, the reading évdeixvuctac orxovdiv.—Ver. 5. dv] For this 
we should probably read 4, as is done by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, on the authority 
of A C* D* F Gx 17, al., Clem. Cyr. The 6», which Tisch. 7 retained, seems 
to be a correction from the analogy of classic Greek.—For rév aitov édeov, 
Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch., on the authority of A D* E F G 81, al. Clem. Max. 
al., read TO avtov éAeoc¢; D E F G Ambr. Aug. etc., put aitov after éAeo¢.—Before 
Aovrpov, Lachm. and Buttm. put Tov, on the authority of AW—After avaxarvdceus, 
D* E* F G, Ambr. Aug. ete., have the reading 6:4, which is manifestly an inter- 
pretation.—Ver. 7. yevoueta] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly read yevyOduev, on 
the authority of A C D* F G, 17, al., Chrys. Ath—vVer. 8. 7@ ce] According to 
all uncials, the 76 should be deleted; so, too, with 7a before xaAa.—Ver. 9. For 
épec¢ (Tisch. 7) there is found in D E F Gy the singular épw (Tisch. 8), which 
is indeed the original reading altered on account of the plurals around it—Ver. 
10. The fee. wera piay wai devtépav vovdeciav (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8) is sup- 
ported by A C K L xy, all cursives, Vulg. ete. ; Tisch. 7 adopted instead of it: 
ueTa piay vovdeciay kai devtépay, on the authority of D E F G, several, Fathers, 
etc. Reiche rightly prefers the Rec.—Ver. 13. Tisch. 7 reads ’A70226, while 
‘Tisch, 8 gives ’A7v0AAGv; some Mss. have ’A702A6va—While Tisch. 7, with the 
support of most authorities, read Aeizy (so, too, Lachm. and Buttm.), Tisch. 8 
adopted Aimy, on the authority of ~ D* ete—Ver. 15. In D** and D*** E F G 
H K L, al., several versions, ete., the word au forms the close; but it is want- 
ing in A C D* 17, ete. Tisch. and Buttm. omitted it; Lachm. enclosed it in 
brackets. 


Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note XX XVIIL., pages 322, 823.] Instructions 
to give exhortations regarding conduct towards the authorities and 
towards all men.—brouipenoxe abroie] [XXXVIII a.] (see 2 Tim. ii. 14) 
presupposes that they are aware of the duties regarding which the exhor- 
tation is given. It is not so certain that Paul is alluding to definite pre- 
cepts already expressed by him.—airoic] viz. the members of the church. 
—apyxaic (kai) é€ovoiac brorascectac] [XXXVIII b] apyai x. éovoia asa 
name for human authorities is used also in Luke xii. 11 (comp. too, Luke 


CHAP. 11. 1-3. ola 


xx. 20; éovoiac alone, in Rom. xiii. 1). The two words are joined together 
in order to give fuller expression to the notion of authority. It cannot, 
however, be shown that the one denotes the higher, the other the lower 
authorities (Heydenreich). It is at least doubtful whether this inculca- 
tion of obedience to the authorities had its justification in the rebellious 
character of the Cretans nationally (Matthies and others). Similar pre- 
cepts also occur in other episties of the N. T.; and here the exhortation 
harmonizes with the injunctions given in chap. ii. The Christians needed 
the exhortation all the more that the authorities were heathen.—ze:ap- 
xeiv] here in its original signification: “obey the superior.’ Its meaning 
in Acts xxvii. 21 is more general. The zec6apyeiv is the result and actual 
proof of the iordocecba. The want of xai does not prove, as de Wette 
thinks, that it does not belong to the datives apyaic¢ (k.) é. Kai would 
have been out of place here, since the following words also are to be con- 
strued with that dative—zpoc wav épyov ayabov éroiuovg eivac] [XX XVIII ¢.] 
not to be taken generally, but in very close connection with apyaic: “ for 
the authorities prepared to every good work” (so, too, Wiesinger and van 
Oosterzee). The ayafév is not without significance, as it points to the 
limits within which they are to be ready to obey the will of the authori- 
ties.— Ver. 2. yundéva BAacdnueiv] The new object uydéva shows that from 
this point he is no longer speaking of special duties towards superiors, 
but of general duties towards one’s neighbor. BAacgnueiv is used specially 
in reference to what is higher, but it occurs also in the more general sense 
of “revile.” Theodoret: udéva ayopevew xaxdc.—auayoue elvar, Excecxeic] see 
1 Tim. iii. 3; the first expresses negatively what the second expresses 
positively —racav évdeckvuuévove (see ii. 10) rpaityta mpd¢ ravtac avipdrovc] 
Chrysostom : kai ’Iovdaiove kai "EAAqvac, woxOjpove K. rovnpotc.—It is impossi- 
ble not to see that the apostle is thinking specially of conduct towards 
those who are not Christian. 

Ver. 3. [XX XVIII d.] “Huev yap] yap shows that the thought following 
it is to give a reason for the previous exhortation. But the reason does 
not lie in this verse taken by itself (Chrysostom: ovxovr uydevi overdionc, 
gyot ToLwovTOG yap HC Kai ob; SO, too, Hofmann), but in this verse when con- 
nected with the verse following. The meaning therefore is: As we were 
in the state in which they are now, but were rescued by the kindness of 
God, it becomes us to show kindness and gentleness towards those whom 
we were at one time like. ‘Hyev stands first as emphatic; zoré, “at one 
time,” viz. before we became believers. Wiesinger: “The contrast to 
moré is given by ére dé in ver. 4; we have here the well-known contrast 
between moré and viv; comp. Rom. xi. 30; Eph. ii. 2, 11, 18, v.8; Col. i. 
21, ili. 7,8; they are the two hinges of the Pauline system.”—xai jjueic] 
“we too ;”” jueic includes all believing Christians. It is to be noted that 
even here Paul makes no distinction between Jewish and Gentile Chris- 
tians (otherwise in Eph. ii. 3).—<avéyra] is equivalent to éoxotiopévor TH 


1Theodoret: ovSé yap eis amavta Set Tots véwe Trunv’ et S& SvoceBeivy KeAcVoeLEV, aVTL 
G@pxovar meOapxetv, dAAa Tov ev Sacpoy Kai Kpus avtTiAéyerv ; comp. Acts iv. 19. 
Tov Popov elodepery, kat THY TMpOgHKOVCAY amo: 


314 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


dcavoia, Eph. iv. 18; without understanding, viz. in reference to divine 
things; not simply : “blinded regarding our true destiny ” (Matthies), or : 
“without knowing what is right” (Hofmann). Heinrichs refers this and 
riavémevor to idol-worship, but the apostle is not speaking here of Gentile 
Christians alone.—areveic] disobedient to divine law ; Heydenreich wrongly 
refers it to the relations with the authorities—r/avéuevor] (see 2 Tim. iii. 
13) stands here not in a neuter, but in a passive sense: “led astray,” pro- 
ceeding on a wrong path, not merely “in regard to knowledge,” but more 
generally. Wiesinger: “sc. amd tic aAqSeiac, aaydea being regarded not 
as abstract truth, but as the sum total of moral good ;” comp. Jas. v. 19; 
Heb. v. 2.—dovrebovrec éexvdupiarc kai yOovaicg roixiAac (see 2 Tim. iii. 6) 7dovai, 
as Jas. iv. 1,8. He who follows his lusts is a slave to them, hence doviei- 
ovrec; see Rom. vi. 6, 12. Michaelis gives it too narrow a meaning by 
referring it to sins of lust.—év kaxia Kai ¢8évp diayovtec] Kaxia is not “ vile- 
ness,” but “ wickedness ;”? comp. Col. i. 8; Eph. iv. 31; otherwise in 1 
Cor. v. 8 and other passages, where it is synonymous with rovypia— 
duayovrec] connected with Siov only here and in 1 Tim. ii. 2.—orvyyroi (az. 
hey.) is equivalent to juwonroi (Hesychius), “ detested and detestable ;” it is 
wanting in Luther’s translation.—coovvreg aaagaove] comp. Rom. 1. 29. 

Vv. 4-6. [On Vv. 46, see, Note XXXIX., pages 323-325.] "Ore dé 7 
xpnorérne Kai 7 diAavdpuria x.7.A.] [XX XIX a.] xpyorérng as a human qual- 
ity; 2 Cor. vi.6; Gal. v. 22; Col. ii. 12; used of God, Rom. ii. 4, xi. 22 
(often in the LXX.); with specia! reference to God’s redemptive work in 
Christ, Eph. ii. 7—o:Aavdpuria] elsewhere only in Acts xxviii. 1 (2 Mace. 
vi. 22, xiv. 9) asa human quality. De Wette remarks on it: “ unusual 
for the idea of ydapic.” The reason why Paul makes use of the word here 
is contained in ver. 2, where he exhorts to mpabryc pic ravtac av¥parovc. 
Xprorérn¢ corresponds in conception to mpairye (both words stand closely 
connected in Gal. v. 22 and Col. iii. 12); and in allusion to xpéc x. avdp., 
Paul adds @Aavpwria. The goodness and love of God to man, on which 
our salvation is based, should lead us to show benevolence and gentleness 
_toallmen. At the same time, the ypyorérn¢ and ¢giAavbpwria of God form 
a contrast with the conduct of men as it is described in ver. 3in_ the 
words: év kakia . . . ycovvtec GAAHAove.. Hofmann rightly remarks that as 
wAavSpwria has the article, it is made independent and emphatic by the 
side of the yprorérnc; it does not, however, follow from this that ypyorérne¢ 
here denotes “ the goodness of God in general towards His creatures.”— 
éxedavy] just asin ii. 11.—roi cwrhpoc judv Ocot] see 1 Tim. i. 1.—Ver. 5. 
[XX XIX b.] The apodosis begins here and not at ée0¢,so that the words ovi« 

. . édeog modify éowsev ; SO more recent expositors, even Hofmann.—ov« 
&& Epywv tov év dixatoobvy & érorfoapev jueic] On é, comp. Rom. iii. 20. Mat- 
thies wrongly : “not from works appearing in the form of righteousness 
which we accomplished, #.e. not from our works produced with the appear- 
ance of righteousness.” “Epya ra év dixacoobvy are rather: “works which are 
done in righteousness.” ’Ev denotes the condition of life in which the works 
are accomplished (de Wette, Wiesinger). Ackaiootvy here is not justification 
(van Oosterzee: justitia coram Deo), but rghteousness, integrity ; so, too, 


CHAP. 111. 4—6. 315 


Hofmann.—é éroujoapuev jyeic] jueic is added emphatically to make the 
contrast all the stronger (Wiesinger). Paul is not speaking of works 
which may have been done by us, but denies that we have done such 
works of righteousness. Bengel rightly: Negativa pertinet ad totum ser- 
monem: non fueramus in justitia: non feceramus opera in justitia: non 
habebamus opera, per quae possemus salvari.—The thought here ex- 
pressed is not, as de Wette thinks, unsuitable to the context. In its neg- 
ative form it rather serves to give emphasis to aAAd xara (by means of) 76 
avrov édeoc, and hence to the conception of the divine ypyoréryc and ¢iAav- 
Opwria. Wiesinger: “The apostle even by the contrast of the oi« wishes 
to make it quite clearly understood that saving grace is quite free and 
undeserved.” ?—On kara 7d ait. oc, comp. 1 Pet. i. 8.—owoev jude] se. 6 
Asiére . . . éregavn does not mean: “ when or after it had appeared,” 
but: “when it appeared,” the saving is here represented as simultaneous 
with the appearance of the divine ypyordéry¢ «.7.2., although da refers 
éowoev to its application to individuals, which is different in time from the 
ére «7.2. above. But Paul could rightly put these two things together, 
because the goodness of God which appeared in Jesus Christ comes to 
perfection in the saving of individuals by the Aourpdy ratcyyeveciac; the 
former is the efficient cause of the other.—juac is not to be referred to all 
mankind, but to believers. The means by which the saving is effected 
are set forth in the words: dca (row) Aovtpod raduyyeveciag Kai avaxawdcewc 
rvetpato¢g dyiov] The expression : 16 Aovtpdv radtyyeveciac, has been very arbi- 
trarily interpreted by some expositors, some taking 2ourpév as a figurative 
name for the regeneratio itself, or for the predicatio evangelii, or for the 
Holy Spirit, or for the abundant imparting of the Spirit. From Eph. v. 
26 it is clear that it can mean nothing else than baptism; comp. too, Heb. 
x. 23; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Acts xxii. 16.—tadvyyevecia] occurs also in Matt. xix. 
28, but in quite a different connection, viz. in reference to the renovation 
of things at Christ’s second coming ; comp. however, 1 Pet. i. 3, 28, avayev- 
vaw, and John iil. 3 ff., yeryydjvar dvodev.—According to the context, Paul 
calls baptism the bath of the new birth, not meaning that it pledges us to 
the new birth (“to complete the process of moral purification, of expia- 
tion and sanctification,” Matthies), nor that it isa visibleimage of the new 
birth (de Wette), for neither in the one sense nor in the other could it be 
regarded as a means of saving (éowsev juac dia). Paul uses that name for 
it as the bath by means of which God actually brings about the new birth.’ 


OBe6c. 


1Similarly Theophylact: éswoev nuas ovK 
€& Epywv, Ov éToijoapmer, aVTL TOD’ OVTE ETOLHTA- 
ev epya Scxarocvvys, ovTE ErWOnueEV Ex TOUTWY, 
adda To Tav H ayaboTns avTOD éroince. 

2 Hofmann is not correct in analysing épywr 
tav ev dixavocvyy into two statements. He 
says that é& épywr is “in the first place to be 
conceived by itself,’ and that tov év Sux. 
further “denies that we have done what we 
should have done in order to deserve to be 
saved.” He then maintains that the relative 


sentence belongs to tay év Stxatocvvy. But 
€pya Ta ev Sixacoovvy forms one conception, 
and on this the relative sentence depends. 
3It is certainly right to say that baptism 
carries with it a pledge to continue the pro- 
cess of purification, and that, from its outward 
form, it bears in itself a symbolic character; 
only these are not the reasons for which the 
apostle calls it the Aovtpdv madcyyeveoias.—In 
the first edition of this commentary I re- 
marked: “ Baptism is regarded as the inner 


316 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


Comp. with this the apostle’s expressions elsewhere regarding baptism, 
especially Rom. vi. 3 ff., Gal. iii. 27, Col. ii. 12, which all alike assign this 
real signification to baptism.—xai avaxawécewg rvebtuatoc ayiov] The genit. 
mv. dy. is the genit. of the efficient cause: “the renewal wrought by the 
Holy Spirit ” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). This may be taken as 
the continuing influence of the Spirit working in the regenerated Chris- 
tian, or as the single act of inward change by which the man became a 
Kauwy Ktiow (2 Cor. v. 17), a téxvov Geo. Here the word is to be taken in the 
latter signification, asis clear from its connection with éowoev jude ;' other- 
wise in Rom. xil. 2; Eph. iv. 22-24. According to some expositors, the 
genit. avaxawécews is dependent on 6:4; Bengel: duae res commemoran- 
tur: lavacrum regenerationis, quae baptismi in Christum periphrasis et 
renovatio Spiritus sancti. According to others, it depends on Aovrpov, and 
is co-ordinate with radiyyeveciac; Vulgate: per lavacrum regenerationis et 
renovationis (de Wette, Wiesinger). The latter is the right view, for 
“what else could avaxaivwore rv. dy. be than the new birth denoted by raduy- 
yevesia?”’ (Wiesinger). In this way avak. rv. dy. is added epexegetically to 
the previous conception radryyevecia, explaining it, but not adding any new 
force to it.2 Heinrichs quite wrongly thinks that 7». dy. here is the 7». 
hominis ipsius, which (quatenus antea fuit WoyiKdy, capxixdy, Exiyewov) be- 
comes holy by the avaxaiv.—Ver. 6. ob ééxeev tg quae TAovoiwc] ov is not 
dependent on rot Aovrpov, but on rvebuaroe ayiov. The genit. od is in accord- 
ance with the common Greek usage. Heydenreich explains it wrongly 
by supposing éf or a@’ to have been omitted: “ from which he abundantly, 
of which he poured out an abundant measure.” —éééyeev é@ jac] an ex- 
pression which has passed from the O. T. (Joel iii. 1; Zech. xii. 10) into 
the N. T. It is used to describe the gift of the Holy Spirit; see Acts ii. 
17, 38, x. 45. The rich abundance of this gift is indicated by Aovcinc.3— 
é¢’ juac| goes back to jude in ver. 5. Christians are saved by God pouring 
upon them, at baptism, the Holy Spirit, which renews them. The apostle 
is not speaking here of the gift of the Spirit which was made at Pentecost, 
but of the gift made to individuals, and made after the outpouring at Pen- 


new birth manifesting itself in the external 


-* Hofmann indeed disputes our remark that 
act of the bath.” This is not apposite, since 


avaxa. T. mv. is added epexegetically to 


baptism is not the new birth itself, but the 
means for producing it. 

1 These words, madvyyeveoia and avakaivwats, 
do not occur in classic Greek. In the former 
word, which Hofmann translates awkwardly 
enough by “resurrection,” the prefix maAw 
points to the former sinless condition of man, 
into which he is restored from his corrup- 
tion. Thus madcyyeveoia, in Matt. xix. 28, 
corresponds in conception to amoxatacracts. 
It is doubtful whether the same reference is 
adapted to avaxatvwors (which only occurs 
here and in Rom, xii. 2); the ava does not 
make such reference necessary. Expositors 
tacitly. avoid this question; comp. Cremer, 
Worterb. d. neut. Grd¢. 


madvyy.; because, as he says, maAcyyeveoia is 
“an incident of the resurrection,’ whereas 
avakaivwots is “a work of the Holy Spirit.” 
But is not this renewing work of the Holy 
Spirit an incident for him on whom it is 
wrought? He further maintains that it might 
be said: €owoev nuas Sv avaxatvwoews mvev- 
patos ayiov, but not eowoev nuas dca madcy- 
yeveoias; but this we cannot admit. The 
iatter may be said quite as much as the 
former. i 

8It is 0 @eds here who imparts the Holy 
Spirit, whereas in Acts ii. 33 the gift is ascribed 
to Christ; see John xiy. 16 comp. with John 
xy. 26. The explanation of this is contained 
in the da. 


CHAP. Ill. 7. 317 


tecost.—d1a “Ino. Xp. tov owriyoc jjuav] This does not belong to éowser, which 
is already defined by dia rod Aovtpod «.7.A. It goes with é£éyeev, so that 
Christ here, as elsewhere in the N. T., is represented as the medium by 
which the Holy Spirit is sent.! In order to understand the train of 
thought properly, we must note that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is 
not a consequence, but the substantial inward fact in baptism, which is 
the bath of the new birth. 


REMARK.—-The question why the apostle here speaks of baptism is rightly 
answered by Wiesinger in this way. Baptism, as the bath of the ta/cyyevecia, 
“is the basis on which rests all further growth in the life of the Spirit,” inasmuch 
as by it the believer is removed from the elvac év capki into the elva: év rvebuare or 
év Xp:or@, i.e. into the condition in which it is possible for him to live no longer 
kata oapka, but kata tvedvua, On the other hand, the apostle does not mention 
faith here as a medium of the saving love of God, because he is looking away 
entirely from the human aspect of the matter, and considering only the divine 
work in the saying of men. Leaving faith out of consideration, baptism is to the 
apostle what he says of it here, viz. the means of the new birth or renewal by the 
Holy Spirit, and also, according to ver. 7, of the completion of the dixaovo Fat ; 
and baptism does not become this to him by means of faith. Hence the apostle’s 
expression cannot be rectified conjecturally by supplying this point, viz. faith. It 
is true that in other passages of the N. T. éote denotes that which brings about 
the new birth, the receiving of the Holy Spirit, justification ; and the one expres- 
sion should not be neglected for the sake of the other. There is here a problem 
which it is the task of Biblical Theology and of Dogmatics to solve; here, how- 
ever, as the passage before us presents no handle for the discussion, it can only be 
indicated without solving it. This much only may by said, that according to 
these sayings of the Scriptures, man only becomes a té/evoc év Xpior@ when he is 
justified and regenerated both by baptism and by faith (the faith, viz., which is 
miotec &€ axonc, Rom. x. 17). 


Ver. 7. “Iva declares the purpose, not the consequence. It is doubtful 
whether it belongs to ééyeev (Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, 
Plitt, Hofmann) or to éowoev as defined by dca tov Aovtpov . . . Tov owrTHpoc 
juav (Bengel, de Wette, and others). The thought is substantially the 
same with both constructions, since the cwrypia is necessarily brought 
about by the outpouring of the Spirit. Still the structure of the sentence 
is in favor of the reference to ééyeev. Wiesinger rightly considers the 
other view “to be unnecessarily harsh, ignoring the explanatory relation 
of vv. 6 and 7 to ver. 5, and depriving éééyeev of its necessary definition.”— 
dixawwtévrec] not “found righteous” (Matthies), still less “sanctified,” but 
“justified,” é:e. “acquitted of the guilt, and with it, of the punishment.” 
Hofmann rightly says that this justification means the same thing as in 
Rom. iii. 24; that it does not mean the change of our conduct towards 


1Matthies remarks, by adding the words __ is out of place, as Paul is not in the least dis 
&a “I. Xp., faith is at the same time assumed cussing subjective conditions. 
as the subjective condition; but the remark 


318 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. , 


God, but of our relations to Him.'—rj éxeivov yapit:] does not belong to 
what follows, but to what precedes. Justification is an act of grace. 
’Exeivov does not refer to God as the subject of ééyeev (van Oosterzee, Plitt, 
and formerly in this commentary), but to ’Iyjoot Xporov (Hofmann), 
according to the usage of the N. T., for which see Acts iii. 13 ; John vii. 45. 
Comp. Winer, p. 148 [E. T. p. 157]; Buttmann, p.91. [E.T. 104]. Heydenreich 
and Wiesinger are wrong in referring it to tvebyaroc; for, on the one hand, 
this would involve the wrong conception that justification is a work of the 
Spirit ; and, on the other hand, there is no mentionin the N. T. of a yapu 
tov mveiuatoc.—Th yapite points us back to ovK é& épywv.2—KAypovdmo 
yervnbowev [yevdueda] Kar’ iAnida Cua aiwviov] [XX XIX c.] war éArida can- 
not, as Heydenreich thinks probable, be construed with faze aiwviov as one 
conception, so as to be equivalent to Came aiwviov éAriCouévnc. On the other 
hand, it is also unsuitable to take kar’ éAr. (. aiwv. together: “in accord- 
ance with the hope of eternal life” (Matthies), because in that case kAnp. 
would not be defined. Kar éAxida should rather be joined with kAyp. 
yevn#., and then the genit. (w%¢ aiwviov belongs to the latter. Chrysostom 
has two interpretations: kav’ éArida, tovréote Kadac HATicapev, obTwo aToAad- 
couev, f), OTe On Kai KAnpovduor éoré. According to the former view, the 
words would have to be translated: “in order that we, in proportion to 
our hope (i. e. as we hope), may become heirs of eternal life ;” according 
to the latter, it would be: “that we, according to hope, might become 
heirs of eternal life.” The latter view is the correct one. The apostle is 
speaking not of the future, but of the present condition of believers. They 
are heirs of eternal life; but they are so in hope, not yet in actual posses- 
sion ; for (a7 aiévoc¢ in its full meaning is something future, Rom. vi. 22, 
23.—xar’ éArida stands here as tr éAridc in Rom. viii. 24; see Meyer on 
the passage.® : 

Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-11, see Note XL. page 325.] IWucorde 6 Adyoc] [XL a.] 
refers, as in 1 Tim. iv. 9, to what precedes, but not to the last sentence 
merely.t It refers to the entire thought expressed in vv. 4-7.—xai zepi 
tobTtav BobAouai ce diaBeBawvota] Regarding the construction of the verb 
SiaBeB., see on 1 Tim.i.7. Vulgate rightly: de his volo te confirmare; 
Wiesinger : “and on these points I wish you to be strongly assured ;” Beza, 


1The apostle says nothing here regarding 
the relation of justification to the dvaxaivwots 
wrought by the Holy Spirit. It is wrong at 
any rate to regard the latter as the ground 
of the former, so that God justifies man 
because he is renewed. Nor, on the other 
hand, ean the renewing be regarded as a 
later consequence of the justification, in the 
sense that God imparts to man the Holy Spirit 
after man has been justified. The two things 
are very closely connected. Justification is 
to be regarded as the ground of renewing, 
while renewing is the actual completion of jus- 
tification. God justifies man so as to renew 
him, to make him His child born of the Spirit. 


2Chrysostom: maAw xapcte, ovK operday. 

8This passage, vv. 4-7, is substantially ~ 
different from that in ii. 11-14. While in the 
latter the chief point is the paedagogic aim 
of the work of redemption, and the apostle 
accordingly is,thinking how Christians are 
pledged to a holy life, in the former the chief 


point is the undeserved love of God made 


manifest in the work of redemption. Hence 
in this passage also much emphasis is laid on 
the idea of regeneration, which is granted to 
the Christian by the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

4So Chrysostom: éecdy mepi pedAAovTwv dta- 
A€EXOn Kai ovmw TwapovTwr, emyyaye TO aftomrio~ 
TOV. 


CHAP, 11.°8, 9: 319 


on the contrary: haec volo te asseverare. De Wette also maintains that 
rept roorwy is the immediate object, but without proving it—iva gpovrifwor 
-Kahov épywv xpoicracda oi meriorevxdtes [7H] Oc@] In harmony with the 
train of thought in vv. 2, 3 ff., Paul here gives a practical purpose as his 
motive. The subject oi remorevsdrec Oem are Christians generally; the 
designation is used because the Cretan Christians had before been heathen, 
Luther translates it rightly: “those who have become believers in God ;” 
while Wiesinger is wrong in explaining it: “those who have put faith in 
God, i. ¢. in His gospel.” The phrase morebew Oe@ expresses the relation 
to God Himself, not merely to His word; comp. Acts xvi. 34. 96 is used 
here as 7@ kup» often is, comp. Acts xvill. 8, xvi. 15; it is synonymous 
with eic tov Oedv, John xiv. 1; comp. miorevew TO dvéuare "I. Xp., 1 John 
iii. 23, and r. eic tr. 6v., John i.12. Hofmann is altogether mistaken in 
construing 9e@ with what follows. If @e@ were to be opposed to avdparoie, 
the latter would have been put before ogéAua; besides, ravra clearly forms 
the beginning of a new clause.—ppovrifew (a7. Aey., often in the Apocrypha 
of the O. T.,also in the LXX.), “reflect on something, take an interest in 
something ;” here, as often in the classics, with a suggestion of anxiety 
(comp. 1 Sam. ix. 5, LXX.).—xardv épyov] depends on zxpoioraota:; it is 
quite general, and should not be restricted to the services to be rendered 
.to the church (Michaelis), nor to official duties' (Grotius), nor to deeds of 
charity (Chrysostom).—rpoicracba here and in ver. 14 is used in the same 
sense as when it is joined with réyvy¢? being equivalent to exercere, “ carry 
on, practise an art;” properly, it is “present oneself before.” The Vul- 
gate translates it: bonis operibus praeesse, which, however, is obscure; 
Beza incorrectly: bene agendo praecedere, which he explains in a pecu- 
liar fashion by sanctae et rectae vitae antistites. Wolf thinks that cpoior. 
denotes not only the studium, but also the patrocinium of good works; 
comp. Rom. xii. 17: rpovoeiodar Kxadd.—ravra tore [ra] Kad nat opérrua Tr. 
avdpéroc] see 1 Tim. ii. 3. Tatra does not refer to katov épyww (Heinrichs, 
Wiesinger), for the apostle certainly did not need to say that xaAa épya are 
xaza for men; nor does it resume cep? toitw (de Wette, Hofmann). It 
should be referred either to ¢povrifew Kar. tpy. mpoioraodac (Heydenreich, 
Matthies) or to daBeBawic8a: The latter reference might be preferred— 
as confirming the exhortation made to Timothy. On the reference of 
tavta to one subject, see Winer, p. 153 [E. T. p. 162]. 

Ver. 9. Contrast to the last words.—popac¢ d& Cyrhoec Kat yeveadoyiac K.7.A.] 
tnrhoeic, see 1 Tim. i. 4; connected with pwpdc also in 2 Tim. ii. 23; kai 
yeveadoyiac, see i. 4; the latter refers to the contents, the former to the 

- form.—xat épev [éperc] Kat wdyac vowxac] epic, like the other words, serves to 
describe the behavior of the heretics; it is not therefore épere tac mpd¢ 
aipetixovc, as Chrysostom interprets it, but quarrels such as take place 


1 Hofmann, too (Schriftbew. II. 2), restricts terpretation, however, he seems to have 
kad. épy. mpotor. to “honest exertion,” by given up, as he does not mention it in his 
which “each one may support himself and commentary. 
contribute to the needs of others, or to the 2Synesius, Ep. 2; Athenagoras, xiii. 612¢. 
purposes of Christian church-life.’ This in- 


320 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


among the heretics. The ywayac voyuxai are disputes about the law and the 
individual precepts of the law; see 1 Tim. i. 7 and Tit. i. 14—Heyden- 
reich wrongly refers the adjective voycxde also to épece. Hofmann even refers 
it to all the preceding conceptions, arbitrarily explaining vowai of the 
contents of the Pentateuch, é.e. of the Thora; with him, therefore, the 
Curqoewe vowwkai are “discussions in which all disputed questions in the 
Thora are taken up,” and the yeveasoyiac vowukai are “investigations into 
the historical contents of the Thora.”—zepioraco] see 2 Tim. ii. 16—With 
these fables and quarrels that go on among the heretics Titus is to have 
nothing to do.—Eioi yap avogedeic kai paracoc] contrast with ravrd dore Kaha 
K.7.A.—paraio¢, like bows, 1 Tim. ii. 8, is used as an adjective of two 
terminations, 

Vy. 10, 11. An injunction regarding behavior towards the heretics.— 
Aipetixov avdpwrov] [XL b.] aiperixde (az. Aey.) is not equivalent to conten- 
tiosus, but is, according to Calvin: quisquis sua protervia unitatem 
ecclesiae abrumpit, any one who causes departure from the pure sound 
doctrine of the gospel. With this Wiesinger agrees, only that he wishes 
to consider the divisions as not brought about by heresies, but by “ eccen- 
tricities and perversities.’ The word aipécecc is often used by Paul 
of ecclesiastical divisions, 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20. So, too, in 2 Pet. ii. 1, 
where it expressly refers to heresies..—yera piav kai devrépav vovS_eciav 
rapaitov] Vitringa (De Vet. Synag. iii. 1. 10) understands zapa:roi to mean the 
formal excommunication, and vovdecia the excommunicatio privata, as 
these were appointed among the Jews for certain cases. But he is wrong ; 
Paul is not speaking here of excommunication proper. Novdesia (1 Cor. 
x. 11; Eph. vi. 4) is equivalent to “reprimand,” including both blame and 
exhortation. This is not to be employed once, but several times: “ after 
one or two.”—zapaitoi] 1 Tim. iv. 7. Bengel: monere desine, quid enim 
juvat? laterem lavares.—Ver. 11. eidéc] see 2 Tim. ii. 23.—ére é&éorparra 
6 towitoc] “that such an one is perverse;” comp. Deut. xxxii. 20: 67x 
yeved éSeotpauuérn éoTw, PNNA 717; it shows the total perversion of 
‘thought and endeavor. Baur says arbitrarily and wrongly: “he has 
turned away from us, and departed out of the communion of believers.” — 
Kai duapraver Ov avtoxaraxpitoc] defines the preceding words more precisely. 
‘Qv abtoxardkpitoe is connected with duapraver, but not with ééorparrac also 
(Hofmann). The perversity shows itself in the fact that he sins condemn- 
ing himself. Abroxardxpirog is equivalent to xexavrypracuévoc tiv iWiav cvvel- 
Snow, 1 Tim. iv. 2, qui suopte judicio est condemnatus. The meaning is: 
he sins with the consciousness of his guilt and of his own condemnation, 
so that there is no hope of his return. . 

Ver. 12. Invitation from the apostle to Titus to come to him at Nico- 
polis so soon as he had sent Artemas or Tychicus. Artemas is not men- 
tioned elsewhere; regarding Tychicus, see 2 Tim. iv. 12. The object in 
sending them is not told. Had the apostle’s purpose been that Artemas 


4Comp. also Rom. xvi. 17: mapakaA® vpas mapa thy didaxnv nv vets euabere mocovvtas 
mKorTeiv Tovs Tas StyooTacias Kai Ta onavdara kat éxxAivate am’ avTav. 


CHAP. 111. 10-14. O21 


or Tychicus should continue the work begun by Titus, he would surely 
have given some hint of it, and not contented himself with the simple 
xpoc sé. It is more probable that the apostle wished to have Titus brought 
by one of them, as he could not yet determine the exact time when he 
was to come (Hofmann). Nicopolis is a name borne by several cities, one 
in Epirus, built by Augustus as a memorial of his victory at Actium; 
another built by Trajan in Thrace ; and another in Cilicia. In the sub- 
scription of the epistle there stands: ad NuxordéAewe tc Makedoviac, which 
may mean either the city in Thrace or that in Epirus. It does not 
appear from his words that Paul wrote the epistle there; on the con- 
trary, the éxez rather shows that Paul himself was not there when he 
wrote the epistle. His purpose was to pass the winter there; comp. 
Introd. 2 3. 
Ver. 13. Zyvav tov vojuxdv] Zenas is otherwise unknown. The epithet 
_rov vow. shows either that he had been formerly a Jew learned in the 
Scriptures, a ypayparede (Matt. xxii. 35, and other passages), or—as is more 
probable—that he was one skilled in law, a jurisconsultus.\—«ai ’A70220] 
He is known from Acts and 1 Corinthians ; but it is not known when he 
went to Crete2—orovdaing mpdrenpov] “ equip carefully for departure ;” on 
xporéurew, comp. 3 John 6. Wiesinger translates oxovdaiwg by “ hastily,” 
unsuitably, as the words iva «.7.2. show. In orovdaiwe the prevailing con- 
ception is zeal; orovdaing éxerv is equivalent to “be zealous for a thing.” 
Luther: “make ready with diligence.”—iva pydev avtoic Asizn] Hofmann’s 
opinion, that “ this is an imperative sentence in itself,” is all the more 
arbitrary that iva manifestly refers to orovdaiwc; comp. besides what was 
said on 1 Tim. i. 3. 

Ver. 14. MavSavétoaav 62 Kat ob jyétepor] of quérepor are the Christian 
brethren in Crete, not, as Grotius thought, Zenas and Apollos. Kai stands 
with reference not merely to the Jews (Hofmann), but to non-Christians 
in general. As non-Christians provide for the needs of their own, so 
ought Christians, and not refrain through their anxiety for heavenly 
things.—katav épywrv xpotorasdar] inthe same general sense as in ver. 8, 
but the words following give the phrase a more special reference to works 
of benevolence ; ei¢ ta¢ avayKaiac ypeiac, “ in regard to the necessary wants.” — 
wa uh dow axapro| The subject is of juérepor. Hofmann construes the 
words el¢ Tac dvaykaiacg ypeiag with the clause of purpose following them. 
He says that “ the particle of purpose is placed after the emphatic part 
of the clause,” a thing which frequently occurs in the N. T., and for this he 
appeals to Winer, p. 522 [E. T. p. 561]. In this he is entirely wrong. 
Such a construction seldom occurs, and of all the passages there quoted 
by Winer, that from 2 Cor. xii. 7 alone is to the point; the rest are of 
quite another kind. It is quite clear from what was said on iva in 1 Tim. 


1Strabo, 12, p.539: ¢&nyynThs TOY vopwr, xa0a- ceed by Crete to Alexandria, which was Apol- 
mep ot Tapa “Pwpatou VOMLKOL. los’ native place, and that Paul gave them 
2 Hofmann suggests that Zenas and Apollos this epistle to Titus to serve them also as @ 
set out from the place where Paul was at the letter of recommendation. These are mere 
time of writing the epistle, in order to pro- conjectures, for which there is no foundation. 


21 


322 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


i. 3,1 that such a construction is not to be admitted here. The exhorta- 
tion in the passage does not refer simply to the present case of equipping 
Zenas and Apollos, which indeed occasioned it, but is in general terms, 
and is applicable to all cases where the necessary wants of others have 
to be considered (van Oosterzee). 

Ver. 15. End.—aorafovrai ce oi per’ uot ravtec] is not to be understood 
generally of believers, but of the apostle’s fellow-workers.—éoraca: rovg 
giAowvrac Auac év riorec] gvAeiv marks the inner, personal relation. The 
distinction between ayar@v and ¢Aeiv is plain from a comparison of John 
iii. 16, yyaryoev 6 O8d¢ Tov Kéopov, With John xvi. 17, 6 rarqp gidei iuac; also 
Matt. x. 37. ‘Hyde, i.e. the apostle—'H yapic peta ravtwv ior] “ with you 
all,” i.e. “ with thee and all Cretan believers.” The form of the benedic- 
tion does not imply that Titus was to communicate the epistle to the 
churches in Crete. 


Norres By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXXVIII. Vv. 1-3. 


(a) The word avrotc, following, as it does, after the specification of various 
classes of persons who make up the entire membership of the church, and after 
ii. 15, which, by its ratra Aadec k.7.A., as well as its uydeic, suggests a general refer- 
ence, must be understood as meaning the Christians in Crete universally. Comp. 
2 Tim. ii. 14, where, though the word airoic is not found, there is, in connection 
with irouiuryoxe, the same suggestion of admonition to all. The first of the things 
which Titus is urged to put them in mind of, is obedience to magistrates. This 
duty is thus put in a parallelism, here, with that of slaves to their masters, as the 
latter is, elsewhere, joined with similar suggestions as to the relation of wives to 
their husbands. These three things, as already noticed in other epistles, were 
likely to be lost sight of, by reason of the doctrine of Christian equality and of the 
new position which the Christian believers regarded themselves as having at- 
tained, and hence it is not strange that they are pressed in the same way, or on 
the same grounds, in different epistles—(b) The kai between apyaic and éovoior 
which is found in T. R. is: to be rejected, as Tisch., W. & H., Treg., Alf., Ell. 
Huther and others hold. evap yeiv is best taken independently, and as having 
its fundamental meaning; to obey one in authority. The connection of apy., éove. 
with wevSapy., making this verb the result and proof of ioraco., which is favored 
by Huther, involves so peculiar and uncommon a construction as to render it 
much less probable. The double expression, however, is somewhat strange, what- 
ever explanation of it may be attempted. Ell. thinks that tev3apy. may, possibly, 
have the sense here of coactus obsequi, and iroracs. that of lubens et sponte submittere, 
which Tittmann assigns to the two verbs in their distinction from each other. 
This, however, seems doubtful, and, if it were intended, the reverse order would be 
more natural—(c) The clause tpdc¢ 74v épy. k.7.A. is taken by Huther and some 
others in immediate connection with dpyaic, and thus as referring to the duties 
of citizens or subjects of government. This connection is supposed by some to be 
indicated or favored by Rom. xiii. 3. Huther and some others think that the ayadév 


1To say that with the common construction mann), is not to the point, since it can easily 
the clause of purpose is too general (Hof- be defined from what precedes. 


NOTES. ode 


points to good works as those in respect to which alone they were to be ready to 
obey the magistrates. Wiesinger, on the other hand, says, that, while it is im- 
plied that the magistrate requires good works, the idea that obedience is not to be 
rendered to what is evil is not intended to be distinctly expressed, and that it does 
not belong to the context to suggest any thought on this point. When we con- 
sider (1) the fact that the exhortation certainly turns from duties to magistrates to 
what is more general, in the next clause, if not here; 2. the independent form of 
this clause, and its parallelism, in this respect, with that which precedes and 
those which follow ; 3. the very general character of kindred expressions in 1 Tim. 
v.10; 2 Tim. ii. 21, iii. 17; Tit. i. 16; and 4. the apparent improbability that, if 
a limitation to duties towards rulers were intended, there would be no word re- 
ferring to them in the clause, there seems to be much reason to question whether 
any such special reference was in the mind of the writer. The connection with 
Rom. xiii. 3, certainly, seems very remote——(d) The reason for the exhortation 
which now follows in vv. 3-6, is similar, in one aspect of it, to that which is 
given, in ii. 11 ff, for tlie exhortations of that chapter—namely, that the very ob- 
ject and purpose of the divine work of redemption was to accomplish that to 
which the exhortation points. This point is even brought out with an especial 
emphasis, by presenting the contrast between what the Christians were before con- 
version (ver. 3) and what belongs to the new life upon which they have entered 
(ver. 2). But there is another aspect in which the matter is here set forth. In 
this view of the words, the reason given is different from that in the verses men- 
tioned, and the emphatic juev and jueic, as well as the ypyoréry¢ and giAavdpwria, 
indicate that the force of the thought is to be found herein—namely, in that, 
having been rescued from the state in which unconverted and heathen men are 
living, by the kindness of God and His love towards man, the Christian ought to 
manifest a similar spirit towards his fellow-men. A combination of the two 
thoughts, with a certain emphasis upon the latter, is, apparently, to be discovered 
in the verses, and was, probably, in the mind of the Apostle. The emphasis re- 
ferred to indicates something corresponding in vv. 1,2. We may believe that, 
while the writer’s expressions in those verses are universal and are to be allowed 
a universal application, he intends to give a special prominence to the feeling and 
actions of the members of the church towards those who are outside of it and are 
unbelievers. The characteristics mentioned in ver. 3 are those which are espe- 
cially descriptive of the heathen, as we see in Eph. and Rom. The word jjei¢ may 
include all, whether they had been Gentiles or Jews, but the former class are so far 
in his thought as, of themselves, to suggest the words in their fullness of meaning. 


XXXIX. Vy. 4-7. 


(a) The word ére is contrasted here with the toré which precedes, and marks 
the transition from the old to the new condition of things. It is evident, how- 
ever, that the matter of salvation is spoken of especially from the divine side of it. 
This is indicated by the words ypyorory¢ and @Aavip., also by éAeoc, by the reference 
to the gift of the Spirit, by 77 éxe/vov yapiti, and even by éowsev as here used. The 
fact that the kindness of God and His love towards men have been manifested to 
those who had previously been avéyro1, avedHei¢ «.7.A., is that on which the special 
emphasis is laid. The manifestation, as in ii. 11, was through the appearance of 
Christ in the world.—(6) In connection with this setting forth of the kindness 


324 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


and love of God, Paul takes occasion to give a statement of the means by which 
God accomplishes the end, which His love has in view—namely salvation. This 
statement was not essential to the main thought of the passage, indeed, but was 
very naturally suggested by it, just as a similar statement—though not, indeed, 
in all its details, which, as here, are modified by the context—was suggested and 
introduced in Rom. iii. 23-26. The Pauline doctrine of justification and salvation 
s set forth, first, negatively—it is not as the result of works which we had done 
in the sphere of our own righteousness (emphatic jueic¢); and then, positively. 
On the positive side, we have presented before us: 1. the originating cause of 
wustification and salvation, the mercy and grace of God; 2. an allusion to the 
objective means in the offering of Christ; 3. the means by which the provision 
made by God is applied and rendered effectual in the individual man, baptism and 
tne gift of the Spirit; 4. the final object and purpose of the provision: that the 
peliever may become an heir of eternal life. The especial peculiarity of the 
passage, as compared with the one in Rom. iii., to which reference has just been 
made, is in the prominence given to baptism and the impartation of the Spirit, 
rather than the work of Christ and faith. This peculiarity may, perhaps, be 
accounted for, so far as the reference to the Spirit is concerned, by the fact that 
the contrast in the character and conduct between the present and past life of 
the jueic (vv. 1, 2, comp. with ver. 3) was in the writer's mind. With respect to 
the matter of baptism as here spoken of, the following points may be noticed :—1. 
There is nothing in the passage which expresses with definiteness the precise 
relation, which, according to the author’s conception of the matter, baptism has 
to regeneration or salvation. He simply says, by means of the washing (or laver, 
bath) of regeneration God saved us. But how it was by means of this, he does 
not declare by any more detailed statement. The preposition 6:4 is one the 
limits of whose meaning and application (within the general sense of means) are 
widely extended. 2. There is no passage in the N. T. which, fairly interpreted, 
necessarily ascribes saving efficacy to baptism, considered in itself. All the 
passages which relate to the subject are either as little, or even less, definite in 
their statements than the one now before us. 3. The uniform representation with 
regard to baptism and the work of the Spirit is that the latter is internal, trans- 
forming and renewing, the former external. The internal, according to the N. 
T. everywhere, is the essential; the external is not so. 4. The symbolic idea of 
’ baptism, as the outward sign of the inward change, will meet the demands of all 
the N. T. passages, and of this passage in particular. Nothing more than this can 
be proved, either from the dca of this passage or from the genitive tadcyyeveciac— 
for the Aovtpév is a Aout, Tadcyy., if baptism is the outward symbol and seal, and 
dva denotes means, if this outward symbol is looked upon as that which accom- 
panies or follows upon the act of faith, and as that which marks the convert as a 
believer—(c) The construction of the genitive Coe aiwviov of ver. 7—whether it 
depends on éAmida, or on K«Anpovduo.—is doubtful. -The immediate connection of 
the words with éArida, while they are separated from «Anpovdsor, and the phrase 
éx’ éAride CwH¢ aiwv, ini. 1 favor the view that they depend on Az. The im- 
probability that the writer would use «Aypovdjuo. without some such defining word, 
may be urged in support of the construction which unites the genitive with that 
noun. Alford claims that «Aypov, stands alone in every place where Paul uses it 
in a spiritual sense, and cites Rom. iy. 14, viii. 17; Gal. iii. 29,iv. 1,7. But in 
all these passages the context suggests the defining genitive immediately, or mor» 


NOTES. BOAT, 


clearly than it does here, and they can hardly be considered as parallel cases. 
Huther urges in favor of his view of the meaning that the Apostle is speaking not 
of the future, but of the present condition of believers. But may it not be, that 
he is carrying forward the thought of the werk of saving us even to its end? The 
use of kar’ éArida, in the sense of tH éAmidc of Rom. viii. 24, “in hope, as con- 
trasted with actual possession,” is not demanded by the context here, as it is in 
Rom. R. V. text makes Cw depend on éArida, R. V. marg. joins it with xAnpovduol. 
Not improbably, this is the correct presentation of the matter. 


XL. Vv. 8-11. 


(a) With the solemn formula iord¢ 6 Adyoc referring to the declaration of the 
Christian truth in vv. 4-7, the Apostle now brings his letter to a close,—taking 
occasion, at the end, to say once more what he had in substance said before: that 
his desire and command was, that Titus should confidently affirm this truth, and, 
on the other hand, should avoid the questionings, genealogies and strifes to which 
the false teachers and their disciples gave themselyes—the object of all, both the 
affirmation of the truth and the avoidance of the error, being that the believers 
might be careful to maintain good works. This last phrase, kaAov ipywy mpoistacta., 
in rendered in the margin of R. V., profess honest occupations. But as the idea of 
good works, as belonging to and to be cultivated by the Christians, is so prominent 
in this Epistle, and as the verb can be used in the sense of carrying on or practicing 
an art, or in the sense of curam gerere, operam dare, (Grimm), there can be little 
doubt that the other meaning is the one here intended.—(b) The word aipetixdv 
(ver. 10) is, quite probably, to be rendered by factious. This accords with the 
sense in which aipeove is to be understood generally in the N. T. The aip, avdp, 
is one who causes divisions. 








A Orit 





= ' ; wh 7 Cte . tre i ima tm 
~ 2% CD a) am rrkeeg terol wt dh Popo es 


ey 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 


BY 


DR. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN. 


@RANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 


Rev. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A. 


WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES BY 
TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 


PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLE@E, 













; oo 
» . : a 


sae Poamenneg 


Bere ay 
A a te ay 


- Bm AME Of i ct 


S a wig 2 a 


: | AY STAT TT Eye gee 


’ F = : 
MRNA RAD Ve PU MET et NF Wi egies i Mees eg: ; Pos 
f: Sere AA a is 5 


= ad / a 


{ 28 Hain si USO (My, PWuey xe) has Pe hd ee 





e ay du Litera oh ME the mls es 
= pie =e . 

, p 7 ~~ a, <<. > - “ep a ‘ Fe 

. ie ae SAL +e Po ‘neat: tiiGuaieae OTs a ee ¥ & a b- a, 

tee =e ee arg eae a ME arc FO MT? og ie 


setid “ee AF aii eae 


hf eetia' ns gon. ¥ <: ie 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 


. 


Tur idea and aim contemplated in the Meyer series of commentaries, 
as also the general plan laid down for the work of translation, has 
been already explained by Dr. Dickson in his Preface to the Epistle 
to the Romans, and elsewhere. The merits, also, of Dr. Liinemann as 
a coadjutor of Meyer, have been sufficiently discussed by Dr. Gloag in 
connection with his translation of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. 
It only remains to add, that the aim in the translation of this commen- 
tary has been to give a faithful and intelligible rendering of Lune- 
mann’s words, and in general to produce a worthy companion volume 
to those of the series already issued. It is hoped that a comparison 
with the German original will show that the work has not suffered in the 
process of transferring to our own soil. 

It will be admitted that the commentary of Linemann on the 
Hebrews—of which the first edition appeared in 1855, the second in 
1861, the third in 1867, and the fourth, enlarged and greatly improved, 
in 1874—has claims of a very high order in a grammatical and lexi- 
cographical respect. He threads his way with a nice discrimination 
amidst a multitude of conflicting interpretations, and generally carries 
conviction with him when he finally gives his own view, or that in 
which he concurs. Even where, as in the case of some three or four 
controverted explanations, he may not have weighed the whole argu- 
ment in favor of an opposite view, he has at least revealed to us the 
process by which his own conclusion is reached, thereby contributing 
to place the reader in a position for forming an independent judgment 
for himself. 

The opinions of Dr. Liinemann, as regards the position occupied by 
the writer of our Epistle towards the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
have been expressed with great candor. Unfortunately no one seems 
to have made the questions here raised a matter for any very prolonged 
and detailed examination since the time of John Owen. With the 
eventual answer which shall be given to these questions will stand or 
fall the claim of Barnabas to the authorship of the Epistle, and many 
other things besides. 

It is, however, by his grammatico-critical and purely exegetical 

329 


e 


330 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 


labors that Liinemann has rendered the greatest service to the cause 
of sacred literature. The judicious use of his commentary can hardly 
fail to lead to a more intimate acquaintance with the letter and spirit of 
this apostolic writing, well styled by the Helmstadt professor Walther 
a “beyond all measure profound epistle.” 

Of the very abundant exegetical literature pertaining to the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, our space admits of the mention of but a very few 
writings. Nor was it needful to give an account even of all that have 
been collated in preparing this translation. Most of the German com- 
mentaries published after the middle of the eighteenth century were 
entirely overshadowed by the appearing of the great work of Bleek, 
and those of subsequent writers. For many particulars concerning 
the authors specified in the following list, more especially of those who 
flourished about the time of the Reformation, I am indebted to the 
kindness of the Rev. James Kennedy, B.D., librarian of New College, 
Edinburgh. To the list of works enumerated might be fittingly added 
the suggestive translation of the New Testament made by Sebastian 
Castellio (1542-1550), mostly during the time of his retirement in 
Basle. 

M. J. E. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


FOR THE GREEK FATHERS. 


Cramer (J. A.), S. T. P.: Catena Graecorum Patrum. Tomus vii. 
8yvo, Oxonii, 1844 


ON THE VULGATE TEXT. 


JustTrINIAN (Benedict), +1622: Explanationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas. 
Lugd. 1612. 


FRANCISCO DE RiBERA: Commentary. 8vo, Col. Agr. 1600. 


Crario (Isidore) [Clarius]: Novum Testamentum Latiné, adjectis scholiis. 


Authore Isidoro Clario. 8vo, Ant. 1544. 
Lupovicus DE Tena: Commentary. folio, Toleti, 1611. 
“ Lond. 1661. 


Prmastvs, Bishop of Adrumetum, sixth century: Commentary on the Epis- 
tles of Paul. That on the Hebrews is by some attributed to Haymo, 
Bishop of Halberstadt, f 853. 


ON THE GREEK TEXT. 


Asrescu (Peter), Professor at Groningen, { 1812: Paraphrasis et Annota- 
tiones. Leyden, 1786-90. 
[Continued by Vitringa to end of chap. vii. 1817.] 

Anaus (Joseph), Professor in Regents Park College, London: Commentary on 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. In Schaff’s Popular Commentary. 

New York, 1882. 


BAuMGARTEN (S. J.), ¢ 1757, and Semier: Erklirung des Briefes. Halle, 1763. 
BIESENTHAL (J. H. R.): Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos, cum rabbinico commentario. 
Berol. 1857. 

Bisping (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Briefen des Ap. Paulus [vol. iii.]. 
Miinster, 1855-63. 

BLEEK (Franz), ¢ 1859: Der Brief an die Hebriier. Berlin, 1828-40. Der 


Hebrierbrief erklirt. Edited by Windrath. Elberfeld, 1868. 
BULLINGER (Heinrychus), ¢ 1575: In omnes Apostolicas Epistolas, Divi videlicet 
Pauli xiiii. ete. Commentarii. [P. 639-731.] fol. Tiguri, 1549. 


Cameron (John), Professor at Saumur, f 1625: Annotationes in N.T. Edited 
by Lewis Cappel. 1628. 
331 


332 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 


CAPPEL (Jacques), ~ 1624: Observationes in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 
8vo, Sedan, 1624. 
Carpzov (J. B.), Professor at Helmstiidt, | 1803: Sacrae Exercitationes . .. ex 


Philone Alexandrino. 8vo, Helmst. 1750. 
CRAMER (Johann Andreas), Professor at Kiel, ¢ 1788: Erklirung des Briefes an 

die Hebrier, 2 parts. Copenh. 1757. 
De WEettTE (W. M. L.), ¢ 1849: Kurze Erklirung, ete. 

Die Briefe an Tit. Tim. und Heb. [vol. ii. part 5]. Leipz. 1844, al. 
De.irzscu : Commentar zum Brief a. d. Hebr. Leipz. 1857. 


[Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1868.] 
Dickson (David), ¢ 1662: Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 


[See also RomANsS. ] 8vo, Aberdeen, 1649, 
D’OurrEIN (Jan.): Zendbrief...aan de Ebreen, ontleidet, uitgebreed en 
verklaard. IAL 


ExsrArpD (H. A.), Professor at Erlangen: Commentar iiber den Hebrierbrief. 
KG6nigsberg, 1850. 
[Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1853. Revised, with additional notes, by 
Prof. A. ©. Kendrick, D.D. . New York, 1858.] 
Ewa tp (G. H. A.), Professor at Géttingen, + 1876: Sendschreiben an die Hebriier. 
Gotting. 1870. 


GERHARD (John), ¢ 1637: Commentarius super Epist. ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Jenae, - 


1661. 

Gomar (Francis), Professor at Leyden, + 1641: Analysis Epistolae Pauli ad 
Hebraeos. Opera [pp. 285-880]. Amstel. 1644. 

GouGE (W.), D. D., + 1653: Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2-vols. 
[Reprinted 1866, 1867.] fol. Lond. 1655. 

Guers (E.): Etude sur |’ Epitre aux Hébreux. Genéve et Paris, 1862. 


Hormann (J.C. K. von), ¢ 1877: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments. Vol. v. 
8vo, Nérdlingen, 1873. 


HotzHever (Otto): Der Brief a an die Ebriier ausgelegt. Berlin, 1883. 
Hypertus (Andreas), ¢ 1564: Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad 
Hebraeos. fol. Tiguri, 1584. 


Jones (W.), D.D.: Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon, Hebrews, and 
the First and Second Epistles of John. fol. Lond. 1636. 


Kay (William), D. D., Rector of Great Leghs: Commentary on the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. In the Bible (Speaker’s) Commentary. 
London and New York. 


Kee (H.): Auslegung des Hebriierbriefs. Mainz, 1833. 
KiuceE: Der Hebriierbrief, Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu.-Ruppin, 1863. 
Kurtz (J. H.), Professor at Dorpat: Der Hebriierbrief exklirt. 1869. 


Lawson (George), Rector of More, Shropshire: Exposition of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. fol. Lond. 1662. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 330 


M’Caut (J. B.), Canon of Rochester: A Paraphrastic Commentary, etc. 
Lond. 1871. 
MANCHESTER (George Montagu, Duke of): Horae Hebraicae [Heb. i-iv. 11]. 
Lond. 1835. 
Manoury (A. F.): See Pastoral Epistles. 
MENKEN (Gottfried), + 1831: Homilien tiber das 9% und 10% Kap., nebst einem 
Anhange etlicher Homilien tiber Stellen des 12°" Kap. Bremen, 1831. 
Motz (C. B.): Der Brief an die Hebrier [ Lange’s series]. Bielefeld, 1861. 
[Translated by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. New York, 1871.] 


OECOLAMPADIUS (Joannes), ¢ 1531: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos J. O. explanationes. 
4to, Argentorati, 1524. 

[From notes taken by some of the hearers. ] 
OweEN (John), D. D., ¢ 1683: Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4 vols. 
fol. London, 1668-74, al. 


PELLICAN (Conrad), ¢ 1556: Commentaria Bibliorum. 9 vols. 
fol. Tiguri, 1532-42. 
[ Vol. ix. “in omnes Epistolas.” ] 
Piscator (John), Professor at Herborn, ¢ 1626: Analysis Logica Epistolae 
Pauli ad Hebraeos. 
{[Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, 3d ed. fol. p. 674-718. 
Herbornae, 1638.] 


REICHE (J. G.): Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum. 3 vols. 
4to, Gottingen, 1853-62. 
[ Vol. iii. In Hebraeos et Catholicas Epistolas. ] 
Reuss (Ed.): L’Epitre aux Hébreux. Essai d’une traduction nouvelle, accom- 


pagné dun commentaire théologique. Strasbourg, 1862. 
Rieum (E. C. A.): Lehrbegriff des Hebriierbriefs. Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859. 


Routiock (Robert), Principal of the University of Edinburgh, + 1598: Analysis 
Logica in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Accessit brevis et utilis Tractatus 
de Justificatione. 8vo, Edinburgi, 1605. 
[Rollock carried the work only to xi. 6, the rest was finished and edited 
by Robert Charteris, at Rollock’s request. ] 


Scuiicutine (Jonas), + 1664, and JoHN CRELL, ¢ 1633: In Epistolam ad 

Hebraeos Commentarius. 8vo, Racoviae, 1634. 
Scumip (Chr. Fr.), ¢ 1778: Observationes . . . historicae, criticae, theologicae 

super Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Lips. 1766. 
Scumip (Erasmus), ¢ 1637: Notae in Novum Testamentum. 1658. 
Scumipt (Sebastian), ¢ 1696: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commentarius. 1690. 
SrewaRpD (George): Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, Edin. 1872. 
Srier (Rudolf), + 1862: Der Brief an die Hebriier, in 86 Betrachtungen ausge- 


legt. 2 parts. 1842. 
Srvuartr (Moses), Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover, t 1852: Commen- 
tary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, 1828, al. 


THoLuck (Andreas), Professor at Halle, { 1877: Kommentar zum Briefe an dic 
Hebrier. 8vo [1836], 8d ed. Hamburg, 1850 


334 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 


VALCKENAER (Lewis Casp.), Professor of Greek at Leyden, ¢ 1785: Selecta e 
Scholiis. Edited by Wassenbergh. Tom. ii. Amst. 1817. 


WALTHER (Michael), Professor at Helmstiidt, ¢ 1662: Griindliche, erdeutliche 
und ausfiihrliche Erliuterung der... Ep. St. Pauli an die Hebrier. 

fol. Niirnberg, 1646. 

WIESELER (Karl), Professor at Greifswald: Untersuchung tiber den Hebrierbrief, 
namentlich seinen Verfasser und seine Leser. 8vo, Kiel, 1861. 
Wirticu (Christoph), Professor at Leyden, | 1687: Commentarius in Epistolam 
ad Hebraeos. Edited by David Hassel. 1692. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. 1—THE AUTHOR. 


HE Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of an unknown writer. 
The question, by whom it was composed, was already vari- 


ously answered in ancient times, and has not to the present 





day been solved in a way which has found general assent. 
The supposition that the Apostle Paul was its author has 
obtained the widest currency and the most lasting acceptance. And in 
reality this supposition must most readily suggest itself, since an unmis- 
takeably Pauline spirit pervades the epistle, and single notices therein, 
such as the mention of Timothy as a man standing in very close con- 
nection with the author (xiii. 23), might appear as indications pointing to 
Paul. Nevertheless, there is found nothing which could have the force 
of a constraining proof in favor of this view, and, on the contrary, much 
which is in most manifest opposition thereto." For— 

(1) The testimonies of Christian antiquity in favor of Paul as the author 
of the epistle are neither so general nor so confident as we must expect, 
if the epistle had been from the beginning handed down as a work of the 
Apostle Paul—Not unfavorable to the claim of Paul, but yet by no means 
decisive, are the judgments of the early Alexandrian Church. Pantaenus, 
president of the school of catechetes in Alexandria about the middle of 
the second century, the first from whom an express statement as to the 
name of the author has come down to us, certainly assigned the epistle 
to the Apostle Paul. But yet it is to be observed that even he felt called 
to set aside an objection, which seemed to lie against the justice of this 
view, namely: that, contrary to the custom of Paul, the author has not, 
even in an address prefixed to the epistle, mentioned himself by name; 
whether it was that this difficulty first arose in the mind of Pantaenus 


1Comp. J. H. Thayer, “Authorship and the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xxiv., Andov. 1867, 
Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in p. 681 ff. 
335 


336 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


himself, or that, in opposition to others who had raised it, he wished to 
show the invalid nature thereof. (Comp. the notice of Clemens Alexan- 
drinus on Pantaenus, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 14: "Hdy dé, &¢ 6 waxdpeog 
éAeye wpeoBvTepog, érel 6 Kiploc, aréaToAog dv Tov TavTOKpaTopoc, aTEGTAAn TpdG 
‘EBpaiouc, did wetpidtyta 6 TLabdAoc, O¢ av sic ta Evy areotaApuévoc, odK éEyypadet 
éavtov 'ESpaiwv axdorodov bua Te Tv Tpd¢ TOV Kbpiov Tiuyv dud Te TO EK TEpLOvOiag 
Kai Toi¢ ‘EBpaiowg éexcoréAreww, E9vOv Khprka dvta Kai axéotodov.).—Clemens Alex: 
andrinus, too, the disciple of Pantaenus (end of the second and beginning 
of the third century), makes repeated mention of the epistle as a work of 
the Apostle Paul (Strom. ii. p. 420, iv. p. 514 sq., ed. Sylburg, Colon. 1688, 
al.). But yet he does not venture to ascribe it in its present form imme- 
diately to Paul. Not only is for him, too, the same objection, which his 
teacher already had undertaken to set aside, still of sufficient weight for 
him to attempt its removal in a new, though, it is true, equally unsatis- 
factory manner; but also the un-Pauline character of the language in the 
epistle does not escape his glance. Rather to Luke than to Paul does the 
garb of the letter seem to him to point. On this account he assumes that 
a Hebrew (Aramaic) original writing of Paul forms the substratum of the 
epistle, but that our present epistle is only a version or adaptation of that 
original writing by Luke, designed for Hellenes. (Comp. Eusebius, Hist. 
Eccles. vi. 14: Kai rv zpoc ‘EBpatovc d& ExotoAjv Ilabdov wév elvai oyot, yeypad- 
Vat dé 'EBpaiorg ‘EBpaikh duryi, Aovkdy 8 gidotinwc aitiy pwedepunveboavta éxdovvat 
toig "EAAnow* bSev Tov abtov ypdta ebpiokeodar Kata THY Epunveiay TabTHE TE THE 
éxoroAqe Kat Tov xpdtewv" uy mpoyeypddVar dé Td TavAoc ardatohoc, eixdTwe. 
‘EGpaiore yap, dyoiv, exiotéddwv rpdAnyuw elAnddor Kar’ abTod Kal brontebovow avtov 
ouveT@e Tavv ovk év apxy axéotpepev avtodve 7d dvoua Geic.—Equally does Origen 
(+ 254) make the Epistle to the Hebrews stand, it is true, in some relation 
to: the Apostle Paul, as he accordingly more than once cites passages 
therefrom as sayings of Paul (e.g. Hxhort. ad Martyr. 44, in Joh., ed. Huet. 
t. ii. p. 56; ibid. t. iii. p. 64, t. x. p. 162, al.). But not only is he aware 
that in point of fact deniers of the composition of the epistle by Paul have 
arisen (oi aderovvreg tiv ExioToAHy wc ob MatAw yeypaupévyv, Hpist. ad African. 
c.9. Comp. also in Matt. xxiii. 27 sq.: Sed pone aliquem abdicare episto- 
lam ad Hebraeos, quasi non Pauli); he too, for his own part, is not able 
to bring himself to recognize the epistie as a work of Paul in the narrower 
sense. Only the thoughts of the epistle does he ascribe to Paul; the dic- 
tion and composition, on the other hand, he denies to be his. Since he 
admits withal that the contents of the epistle are Pauline, he regards the 


ancient tradition, which traces it back to Paul, as not unfounded; he has 


INTRODUCTION. 337 


therefore no fault to find if a church looks upon the epistle as the work 
of Paul. By whom, however, it was in reality composed is, he thinks, 
known only to God. Tradition, he tells us, speaks sometimes of the 
Roman bishop Clement, sometimes of Luke, as the author. (Comp. the 
two fragments of the lost homilies of Origen on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, preserved in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 25: "Ore 6 yapaxryp tite 
AéEewe THE Tpd¢ ‘EBpaioug éEmiyeypappévye ExvoToAqe ovK Eyer TO Ev Adyw idiwriKdv Tod 
arootéAov, Guoroyfoavtog éavtov idiatyy eivae TO Adyw, TovTéoTL TH Hpdoel, GAAG 
fot 7 émoToAn ovvdécer THE AéEEwC EAAHVIKWTE PA, TAG 6 ETLOTaMEVOE KpivEely dpacewv 
diapopag buohoyhoa av* TaALy Te avd OTL TA VOhuaTa THe ExLoTOAHC Pavudora EotL Kat Ov 
Sebtepa TOV arooToAtKGv duoAoyoupévwvy ypaymatov, Kai TovTO av ovudfyoar elvat 
aAndic Tac 6 Tpocéywov TH avayvdcet TH aTooTOALKH. . . . "Ey® dé arroparvduevoc 
eitou’ Gv, OTe TA wev VOHUATA TOV aToaTOAOD éoTiv, 7 JE Ppaotg Kal 7 GiVvIEDLE aTOUVy- 
Movevoavroe TLvoe TA AmTooTOALKA Kal WoTEpEL GYOALOypadHoavTéc Tog TA Eeipnuéva 
i76 Tov OidackdAev, Ei tic obv éxxAnoia Eyer TabTyv THY ExtoTOAHVY a¢ TlabAov, aitn 
evdokimeita Kal él TOUTY' Ov yap ElKH ol Apyaior avdpec Hc TlabAov abrAv rapadedé- 
kaow Tic dé 6 ypdpac! rAvErLoTOAHY, TH wiv aAndéc Gedc oldEv' H 68 Ele Huae 
p0acaca iotopia i7é Tier pév AeydvTwr, OTe KAgune 6 yevduevoc éExioxorog ‘Payaiwy 
éypawe THv ExtotoAgy, O76 Tivwv dé, OTe AovKac 6 ypawac TO evayyé ALov Kal Tac Tpakerc.) 
—Only subsequently to the time of Origen, accordingly, was the epistle 
universally regarded within the Alexandrian Church, as within the Egyp- 
tian Church in general, as a writing which proceeded immediately from 


the Apostle Paul. Declarations thereof are appealed to, as simply the 


1That 6 ypawas denotes the actual author, 
and not, as Olshausen (“De auctore ep. ad 
Hebr.,” in his Opusce. Theol., Berol. 1834, p. 
100), Stenglein (Historische Zeugnisse der vier 
ersten Jahrhunderte iiber den Verf.des Br. an 
die Hebr., Bamb. 1835, p. 35), and Delitzsch 
(“Ueber Verf. und Leser des Hebraerbr.,” in 
Rudelsbach u. Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. die Luth. 
Theol. 1849, p. 259), assert, with the assent of 
Davidson (Introduction to the Study of the New 
Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p. 228 f.), the 
mere “scriba” or “penman,” is shown even 
by the analogy of the closing words: Aovkas 
© ypawas TO evayyé\tov Kal Tas mpaéecs. 
Wrongly does Delitzsch (in his Kommentar, 
p- Xvii.) object that Origen, indeed, concedes 
to the apostle a part [in its composition], and 
that Luke also, in the Gospel and the Acts, 
was working up a material not of his own in- 
vention, but one ready to his hand. For the 


22 


part which Origen assigns to Paul is not an 
active, but a passive one; that Paul exerted 
an immediate influence on the writing of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, or was directly 
occupied with the same—of this Origen says 
nothing; the dependence upon Paul is limit- 
ed in his estimation to the fact that the epistle 
was composed by a disciple of Paul, and in 
the spirit of Paul. By the consideration, 
however, that Luke in his two works was 
using a material “ready to his hand,” his 
authorship in reference to these works is not 
annulled; for the notion of authorship is not 
destroyed by the mode in which it is exer- 
cised. Besides, if Origen had wished to 
denote the particular way in which the 
writings of Luke arose, he would have put, 
not 0 ypaas, but 0 cuvtagayevos, or Some- 
thing similar. 


338 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


words of Paul, by the Alexandrian bishops, Dionysius, about the middle 
of the third century (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 41); Alexander, about 
312 (in Theodoret, H. E. i. 3, Opp. ed. Schulze, tom. iii. p. 736, and in 
Socrat. H. E. i. 6, ed. Vales., Paris 1686, p. 11); Athanasius (} 378), in his 
thirty-ninth epistola festalis, and elsewhere; Didymus, the president of the 
Alexandrian school of catechetes (+ 395), the Egyptian monks, Macarius 
the elder, and Marcus Ascetes (c. 400), and others. 

In the ancient Syrian Church the epistle, it is true, was held very early 
in ecclesiastical repute. For it is already received: into the Peshito, be- 
longing to the end of the second century. But that it was so soon as this 
held to be a work of Paul, does not follow from this reception. On the 
contrary, the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews has been placed in the 
Peshito not already after the letters of Paul addressed to churches, but 
only after those of his letters addressed to private persons, might rather 
be interpreted as a sign that this letter, only on account of its similar 
character, had been attached, as it were, by way of appendix to the 
Pauline Epistles, while not assigned to Paul himself. Yet the later church 
of North-Eastern Syria seems to have ascribed this writing to the Apostle 
Paul. For while Jacob, bishop of Nisibis (¢. 325), cites declarations of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews only in general as utterances of an apostle (Gal- 
land. Bibl. Patr. v. pp. xvi. lxii. al.), and this indefinite mode of citation 
is also the prevalent one with Jacob’s disciple Ephraem Syrus (f+ 378) ; 
yet the latter, at any rate, seems not to have doubted the composition by 
Paul, since (Opp. Graec. tom. ii., Rom. 1748, fol. p. 203) he joins together 
the passages Rom. ii. 16, Eph. v. 15, Heb. x. 31, by the common introduc- 
tory formula: Ilepi rabry¢ tHe juépac Bog Kat Iavdog 6 aréotodoc, and then 
abruptly separates from further citations by the words: Bog dé kai 6 

_paxapiog Uerpoc—In like manner in Western (Grecian) Syria, after the 
-middle of the third century, the epistle ‘was probably assigned to the 
Apostie Paul; since, in the letter issued by the Antiochian Synod (c. 264) 
to Paul of Samosata, Heb. xi. 26 and sentences out of the two Epistles to 
the Corinthians are connected together as sayings of the same apostle 
(comp. Mansi, Collect. Concil. t. i. p. 1088). 

Elsewhere, too, in the Eastern Church, the opinion that Paul was the 
author became in subsequent times more and more general. Neverthe- 
less, doubts as yet by no means ceased to be heard. Thus Eusebius of 
Caesarea (in the first half of the fourth century) often, indeed, quotes the 
Epistle to the Hebrews as the work of Paul, and without doubt reckons 


it, since he expressly accepts fourteen Pauline Epistles (Hist. Eccles. iii. 


INTRODUCTION. 309 


3), in the chief passage on the New Testament canon (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25), 
—as a constituent part of the epistles of Paul, which are mentioned only 
in general,—to belong to the Homologumena. But yet he regards the 
epistle only as a version from a Hebrew original of Paul (Hist. Eccles. iii. 
88), and can tell of Greeks who, in reliance upon the adverse judgment 
of the Roman Church, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle in any 
sense (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3). Nay, in another place (Hist Eccles. vi. 13), him- 
self even reckons the epistle among the av7iAeyéuevar ypagai;! inasmuch as 
he places it in one line with the Wisdom of Solomon, that of Jesus Sirach, 
and the epistles of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, and Jude! On the other 
hand, the epistle is acknowledged as directly the work of Paul, in the 
sixtieth canon of the Council at Laodicea after the middle of the fourth 
century, by Titus of Bostra (+ ¢. 871), by Basil the Great (7 379), and his 
brother Gregory of Nyssa; by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (7 386); by 
Gregory of Nazianzus (+ 389), in the Jambi ad Seleucum, where, neverthe- 
less, the remark has been inserted: ruvé¢ dé dao tHv Tpd¢ ‘EBpaiove vddov ; 
by Epiphanius (+ 402), Chrysostom (+ 407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (f ¢. 
428), and others. Yet Theodoret in his Prooemium to the epistle (comp. 
also Epiphanius, Haer. 69. 37) is still engaged in polemics against those 
of Arian sentiments, who rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews as véHoc, 
denying its Pauline authorship. 

While thus the testimonies of the East in general are favorable indeed 
to a Pauline origin of the epistle, an immediate composition thereof by 
Paul, however, was for the most part asserted only in later times, whereas 
in the earlier period more generally only a mediate authorship was main- 
tained ; the West, on the other hand, during the first centuries, does not 
acknowledge an authorship of Paul in any sense.—A voucher for this 
statement is Tertullian, belonging to the North African Church, at the 
end of the second century and the beginning of the third. Only on a 
single occasion does he make express mention of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, in order to cite from it the words vi. 4-8, and it is here evidently 
his endeavor to rate as highly as possible the authority of the writing 
cited by him. Of a composition thereof by the Apostle Paul, however, he 
knows nothing; instead of Paul he names Barnabas as its author, and 
that not in the.form of a conjecture, but simply and without qualification, 


1 According to Delitasch, indeed (Komment. Tats amd T@Y avTLAEyoLEeVwY ypaday 
p- xvii. f.), this supposition rests upon a mis- MapTupiats, THS Te Aeyomevns SadouavTos codias 
understanding of the words of Eusebius. kat THs “Incov Tov Sipax Kart THS Pods 
But Eusebius’ words are surely clear enough. ‘EBpatovs émtatoAns, THS TE Bapvafa 


They are as follows: xéxpyntac & év avrtois cai kai KAyjmevtos Kat ‘lovda. 


340 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


in such wise that he manifestly proceeds upon a supposition universally 
current in the churches of his native land. (Comp. de Pudicitia, c. 20: 
Volo tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimo- 
nium superducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam 
magistrorum. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, a Deo satis 
auctoritati viri,’ ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae 
tenore: “aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potesta- 
tem?” Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocry- 
pho Pastore moechorum. ... Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum 
apostolis docuit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam poenitentiam 
promissam ab apostolis norat.)—Also, in the time immediately following, 
the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot in Proconsular Africa have been 
regarded as a writing of the Apostle Paul. This is proved on the author- 
ity of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (fF 258), who, with the single exception 
of the short Epistle to Philemon, makes citations from all the letters of 
Paul, and yet nowhere quotes passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
but asserts, on the other hand, that Paul wrote only to seven churches 
(comp. Testim. adv. Jud. i. 20; De Evhortat. Martyrii, c. 11). 

But as the early Church of North Africa, so also the early Roman 
Church knew nothing of an appertaining of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
to the Pauline collection of letters. This is the more noteworthy, inas- 
much as within the Roman Church the earliest trace is met with of the 
existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For a series of characteristic 
expressions of the latter is taken up by Clemens Romanus (towards the 
end of the first century) in his Epistle to the Corinthians (comp. specially 
cap. 86 with Heb. vi. 4, i. 3, 4,5, 7,138; cap. 17 with Heb. xi. 37; and in 
_ general, Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, Part ii. vol. i., Lond. 
1748, p. 62 ff.; Bohme, p. Ixxy. sq.). These derived expressions, however, 
are not introduced as citations, but are blended with his own discourse. 
They prove, therefore, only that Clement was acquainted with the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, and highly prized it, but afford no information on the ‘ 
question as to whom he regarded as the author. That, however, Clement 
believed the Apostle Paul to be the author is rendered extremely improb- 
able by the position which the Roman Church of the subsequent period 
assumed towards this epistle. In the fragment on the canon of the 
Roman Church, discovered by Muratori, belonging to the close of the 
second century, it is stated that Paul wrote to seven churches; upon 


1Thus we have to read, with Oehler (Tertull. Opp. tom. i., Lips. 1853, p. 839), in place of 
adeo satis auctoritatis viri. : 


INTRODUCTION. 341 


which follows an enumeration of our present thirteen Pauline Epistles. 
Besides these, two other letters are then named, which have been forged 
as coming from Paul; but of the Epistle to the Hebrews not even mention 
is made. It cannot thus in the Roman Church of that time have been 
invested with any canonical authority, much less have been looked upon 
as a writing of the Apostle Paul—tIn lke manner Caius, presbyter at 
Rome at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, recog- 
nized, in express opposition to the repi To cuvratrecy Kalvac ypagac 
npowéterad te kai Téamua, Only thirteen epistles as the work of the 
Apostle Paul, to the exclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. 
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 20)—Even as late as about the middle of the 
third century the Epistle to the Hebrews was not in the Roman Church 
esteemed to be a work of Paul, nor indeed regarded as a canonical writing. 
This is evident from the fact that Novatian, in his dissertations, De Trinitate 
and De Cibis Judaicis (in Gallandi, Biblioth. Patr. t. ii. p. 287 sqq.), although 
these abound in Biblical citations, and although their subject might natur- 
ally suggest the employment of the Epistle to the Hebrews, nowhere so 
much as makes mention of the same; an omission which, supposing its 
recognition as a canonical writing, and one proceeding from Paul, would 
be the more inexplicable, inasmuch as Novatian could hardly have urged 
any passage of Scripture in favor of his severer view with regard to the 
receiving again into the communion of the church of those who had 
lapsed, with greater appearance of justification than this very text of Heb. 
vi. 4-6.—So likewise Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 20) expressly observes with 
respect to his age (first half of the fourth century): ka? ei¢ devpo mapa 
‘Pwpaiwy tisiv ov vouiterar TOU arooréaov tuyyaverv—Of Irenaeus, moreover, 
the representative of the Church of Southern Gaul at the end of the 
secéond century and beginning of the third, Stephanus Gobarus relates, in 
Photius, Bibl. Cod. 282 (ed. Hoeschel, Rothomagi 1653, fol. p. 903), that he, 
equally as Hippolytus, denied that the Epistle to the Hebrews was com- 
posed by Paul. In harmony with this statement is the fact that Irenaeus, 
in his great work Advers. Haereses, often as he had occasion to cite this 
epistle, and frequently as he otherwise adduces proof passages from the 
epistles of Paul, yet nowhere appeals to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In 
the lost writing BiBAiov diaréfewv diagdpwr, he did indeed, according to a 
notice in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. v. 26), cite some passages from the Epistle 
to the Hebrews (just as he did from the Wisdom of Solomon); but that 
Irenaeus regarded the Apostle Paul as its author is not said by Eusebius 
either. 


342 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Only after the middle of the fourth century did the opinion that Paul 
was its author gradually find acceptance in the West—a change of views 
which, without doubt, is to be traced to the preponderating influence of 
the Greek Church upon the Latin. As a work of Paul it is cited by 
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (¢ 368); Lucifer of Cagliari (F371); his contem- 
porary, Fabius Marius Victorinus ; Philastrius, bishop of Brescia (f ¢. 387); 
Ambrose, bishop of Milan (7397); Rufinus of Aquileia (7 c¢. 411); Jerome 
(+ 420); Augustine (+430), and others. That change of views comes out 
with special distinctness in the African synods at the end of the fourth 
century and the beginning of the fifth. In the thirty-sixth canon of the 
synod at Hippo (893), as in the forty-seventh canon of the third synod at 
Carthage (897), in the determination of those books of the New Testa- 
ment to be held as canonical, the number of the epistles of Paul is 
declared to be altogether thirteen; and then is added: by the same, the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (Pauli apostoli epistolae tredecim ; ejusdem ad 
Hebraeos una). This separate mention shows that at this time they did 
not yet venture to concede to the Epistle to the Hebrews a perfectly equal 
rank with that of the thirteen universally recognized letters of Paul. 
Presently after, however, in the twenty-ninth canon of the fifth Cartha- 
ginian synod (419), it is said, on the occasion of a similar enumeration : 
epistolarum Pauli apostoli numero quatuordecim. Yet, spite of this 
revolution of the judgments in general, doubts as to the canonicity and 
Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews were not entirely reduced to 
silence, even in this late period. Philastrius still remarks that the same 
was only rarely read in church among the Latins (Haeres. 89); and in 
Haeres. 88 mentions, among the books which, according to the appoint- 
ment of the apostles and their successors, were alone to be publicly read 
‘in the assemblies, only thirteen Pauline Epistles. The commentary of 
Hilary (Ambrosiaster), moreover, covers indeed the whole thirteen Pauline 
Epistles, but not the Epistle to the Hebrews; and even Rufinus adds, on. 
a mention of the epistle (Invectiva in Hieronymum 1, Opp. Hieronymi, ed. 
Martianay, t. v. p. 279), the words: si quis tamen eam receperit. With 
like wavering does Jerome also often express himself (e.g. on Tit. i. 5, 
Opp. ed. Vallars, 2, t. vii. P. 1, p. 695: Si quis vult recipere eam epistolam, 
quae sub nomine Pauli ad Hebraeos scripta est.—Ibid. on ii. 2, p. 714: 
Relege ad Hebraeos epistolam Pauli, sive cujuscunque alterius eam esse 
putas), and observes expressly, e.g. Epist. 125 ad Evagrium (ed. Martianay, 
t. ii. p. 571): Epistola ad Hebraeos, quam omnes Graeci recipiunt et 
nonnulli Latinorum.—Comment. on Matt. xxvi. 8, 9 (ed. Vallars, t. vii. P. 1, 


INTRODUCTION. 343 


p. 212): Paulus, in epistola sua, quae scribitur ad Hebraeos, licet de ea 
multi Latinorum dubitent.—Catalog. c. 59 (ed. Martianay, t. iv. p. 117): 
sed et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur; and 
similarly elsewhere. In like manner Augustine also observes (De Pecca- 
torum meritis et remissione, 1. 27, Opp. ed. Bened. t. x., Antw. 1700, p. 18) 
that the Epistle to the Hebrews is nonnullis incerta, although he himself is 
decided in his judgment by the auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, among 
whom this writing also is held in canonical repute. 

But as we are not able to appeal, in support of the hypothesis that Paul 
is the author of this epistle, to the decided and unanimous tradition of 
antiquity, so also— 

(2) The hints afforded by the epistle itself, with regard to the person 
and historic situation of its author, do not lead us to think of the Apostle 
Paul. The passage ii. 3 is absolutely decisive against Paul. For here the 
author reckons himself among the number of those who have received 
their knowledge of the gospel not immediately from the Lord Himself, 
but only through the medium of the first disciples and ear-witnesses. He 
claims thus no equal rank with the twelve apostles, but takes his place at 
the standpoint of Luke (Luke i. 2). That is, however, the direct opposite 
of the manner in which Paul expresses himself, when he sets forth, 
whether polemically or without any secondary aim, how he obtained his 
acquaintance with the gospel: he denies expressly that he had acquired 
his knowledge of the gospel from the teaching of men; it was communi- 
cated to him immediately, by revelation, from the Lord Himself, and on 
that account he stands upon a complete equality of apostolic dignity with 
the twelve original apostles (Gal. i. 1, 11, 12, 15, 16, 11. 6; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xi. 
23; Eph. iii. 2, 3.\—Indications of a Pauline origin, it has been thought, 
may be discovered in x. 34, xill. 18 f., 28, 24. But altogether without 
reason. The first passage would favor a reference to Paul only in the case 
that the lectio recepta toic decpoic pov Were correct. It is, however, deci- 
dedly false; instead thereof we have to read roic¢ deopiow. The second passage 
likewise affords no sufficient ground for thinking of Paul. For the state- 
ment that the author was a prisoner is not at all to be found in it; since 
the concluding words of xiii. 23 plainly show that the author, at the time 
of inditing his epistle, was in a position of entire freedom.’ Further, from 


1That the author of the Epistle to the He- Hilgenfeld’s Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1864, H. 4, 
brews was in a state of captivity, and was p. 357 f.) has nevertheless felt bound to deduce 
begging of the church for intercession with from the form of the text in the Codex Sin- 
God in his @Atfis, Tobler (“Studien nach dem aiticus: mpocevxeaGe mept nuay OTe Kady. Ba 


Codex Sinaiticus uber den Hebrierbrief,” in yap OTe KaAny ovvidno.y Exouev ev TaGLY KaAws 


344 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
the third passage we may certainly conclude that the author was on terms 


But this 
fact could be regarded as a sign indicative of Paul himself only if Timo- 


of friendship with Timothy, the well-known assistant of Paul. 


thy were characterized as a person who occupied a subordinate position 
towards the author, which is not the case. As the words read, the 
passage is appropriate to any disciple of Paul as the writer. To this the 
consideration must be added, that in the passage in question the deliver- 
ance of Timothy out of his captivity is announced: the readers must thus 
have had a knowledge of the imprisonment itself; it could not therefore 
have been either insignificant or of short duration. Of an imprisonment 
of Timothy, however, so long as he was the assistant of Paul, there is not 
found the slightest trace, either in the epistles of the latter or in the Acts 
of the Apostles. Much more probable is it, therefore, that this notice 
refers to an imprisonment suffered by Timothy only after the death of the 
Apostle Paul. The fourth passage, finally, is supposed to show that the 
epistle was written from Rome, and on that account probably by Paul. 
But from oi a7d rie "Iradiac the author could send salutations only if he 
were somewhere outside of Italy. If he had himself been present in 
Italy, with the Italian Christians from whom the salutations come, at the 


time of the composition of the epistle, he must have indicated them as oi 


Oédovtes avactpéperdar. According to Tobler, 
kady. 0a is to be derived from cadet, and in- 
deed is to be regarded as an earlier contrac- 
tion for xadeoueOa, in which the quantity of 
the crasis has remained resting on the former 
vowel (!); so that caAeto@ar, in this connec- 
_ tion, would correspond to the Latin in jus 
‘vocari, citari, Acts iv. 18, xxiv. 2, and the sense 
would result: “ Pray for us, for we are sum- 
moned before the tribunal, must plead in our 
own defence; that we may have a good con- 
science, a cheerful spirit, to give an account; 
for in all things, and in this case too, we wish 
to walk rightly.” But in order to perceive 
the erroneousness of such a mode of argu- 
ment, a glance at the codex itself may suffice. 
‘his presents Heb. xiii. 18 in the following 
arrangement: 

mpogevxeabe Tre 

pt NMwY oTe Kady. 

0a yap oT Kadnv 

ovvidynow K.T.A. 


Evidently «adj. is nothing else than the cadnv 


following in the next line, inasmuch as a 
stroke at the end of a line is very often placed 
in the Cod. Sin. instead of an end letter; so 
that by a mere error of transcribing, of which 
there are very many in the Cod. Sin., ort kaAnv, 
which belonged only to the third line, was 
wrongly placed in the second, and here 
pushed out the three first syllables of the 


* qev8oue8a, which the-copyist had before him 


in the text given him for copying. That the 
copyist really had me@oue@a—for which, - 
moreover, the fourth hand has put wemoc@apex 
by way of correction—before him for copying 
is clearly shown, as well by the 6a, as also by 
the yap of the third line. Comp. against 
Tobler also Volkmar, in Hilgenfeld’s Ztschr. 
f. wiss. Theol. 1865, H. 1, p. 108 ff. 

1That Ebrard (p. 417 ff.) fs very much in- 
clined to bring out of the construction of 
Phil. ii. 19, 23 an imprisonment of Timothy at 
Rome, at- the time when Paul was held cap- 
tive there, deserves to be mentioned only as 
a curiosity. 


INTRODUCTION. 345 


év ty 'Iradig (comp. 1 Pet. v.18). At most, we could only assume that 
the author had meant by oi ad ry "Iradiag Roman Christians out of the 
province, in opposition to oi év ‘Pouy, the Christians of the Roman capital. 
Then he would certainly have been dwelling in Rome. But how would it 
be explicable, in that case, that he should neglect to convey a salutation 
from these Christians of the capital? While, on the other hand, if the 
author was writing outside of Italy, the isolated expression of greeting 
from oi amd t7¢ "Iradiag is simply explained on the supposition, that in 
the place of his dwelling for the time being, a Christian church from 
which he could likewise send salutations did not yet at all exist. 

Against Paul as the author argue— 

(8) The style and manner of presentation characteristic of the epistle. 
Origen has already observed (vid. supra, p. 331), that every one who is a 
judge of the diversities of language must admit that this writing is 
ovvdéces TIC AéFewe EAAnvixnwrépa than the letters of Paul; and the same fact, 
even before his time, drew the attention of Clemens Alexandrinus (vid. 
supra, p. 2), as in general the widespread belief of antiquity in a Hebrew 
original of the epistle is based upon such divergency. But the epistle is 
distinguished not merely by a purer Greek,—with which are found mingled 
Hebraisms, for the most part only in the citations borrowed from the Old 
Testament,—it is also more perfectly rounded off into periods, and more 
rhetorical. Whereas Paul wrestles with the language in order to express 
in words the abundance of thoughts pouring in upon him, and irregular- 
ities of grammar, variations of structure, and anacoluthias are nothing 
rare with him, the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews always flows 
on in smooth facility. The harmonious symmetry of the sentences is 
preserved uninterrupted, even where parentheses of considerable extent 
are inserted (comp. vil. 20-22); nay, parenthesis is enclosed within paren- 
thesis, and yet the writer steadily returns to complete the construction 
begun (comp. xii. 8-24). The greatest care is bestowed throughout upon 
euphony and musical cadence (comp. e.g. i. 1+, vii. 1-3), upon the effective 
grouping of words (comp. e.g. vii. 4), and even the use of particles and 
participles betrays throughout an acquaintance with the art of composi- 
tion and a learned rhetoric. While the Apostle Paul is everywhere con- 
cerned only about the matter itself which he is presenting, never troubles 
himself about a fair form of its clothing in language, and with him even 
the most affecting outbursts of natural eloquence are never anything but 
the immediate product of the moment,—in the Epistle to the Hebrews 


the endeavor after euphony and adornment of style extends even to the 


346 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


details of expression and the turns of the discourse. Where, for instance, 
the plain and simple p.o#éc, of which Paul regularly makes use, might 
have been placed without any difference of sense, the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews chooses just as regularly the fuller sounding 
uobarodocia (11. 2, x. 35, xi. 26), and in accordance therewith makes use of 
épkwpocia (vil. 20, 21, 28), aivarexyvoia (ix. 22), and other sonorous com- 
Whilst, further, e¢. g., the sitting of Christ at the right hand of 
God is indicated by Paul simply by év deé:a tod Be0d Kabjuevoc (Col. ili. 1; 
comp. also Rom. viii. 834; Eph. i. 20), in the Epistle to the Hebrews the 
majestic formulas: éxafioev év defid tHE wEeyadwobvag év bypndoic (i. 3), ExdBicev 


pounds. 


év deE1a Tov Opdvov tHe weyadwotvyc év Toic obpavoic (Vili. 1), év deEa Tod Apdvov 
Further, that 
which Paul predicates of Christ, in describing Him simply as éixav rov 


Tov Heov Kexdfixev (xii. 2), serve to express the same thought. 


feov (2 Cor. iv. 4), or as eix@v tov Oeov Tov aoparov (Col, i. 15), or as év popon 
feov irapyov (Phil. ii. 6), is expressed by the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews in more carefully chosen language by means of the character- 
istic dv axabyacna tHe dbEn¢ Kai yapaKtAp THE bmooTaGEwe Tov Heov..—As, how- 
ever, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews surpasses the Apostle Paul 
in respect of this external side of the diction, and of all writers of the 
New Testament comes nearest to a classical perfection,—in such wise that 
only some portions in Luke bear comparison therewith,—yet, on the 
other hand, he falls considerably behind the Apostle Paulin respect of 
the inner character of his mode of presentation. There is wanting to his 
argumentation that dialectic acuteness (comp. ée. g. xii. 25), to his sequence 
of thought that severe and firm connectedness (comp. e.g. iv. 14), to his 
expression that precision and definiteness (comp. e. g. vii. 27), which are 
characteristic of the Apostle Paul. 
: _ (A) Deviations from Paul are shown, further, in the doctrinal subject- 
matter of the epistle. Certainly in the main, and regarded as a whole, its 
fundamental doctrinal conception is the same as in the Pauline Epistles, 
as also in details it affords manifold notes of accord with the doctrinal 


presentation of the latter.2 Nevertheless, this dogmatic harmony is not 


1 Many further differences of language in 
details, in part connected with the fact that 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews the language 
is preponderantly rhetorical, with Paul pre- 
ponderantly dialectic, see in Schulz, Der 
Brief an die Hebr., Breslau 1818, p. 135 ff.; 
Seyffarth, De ep. quae dicitur ad Hebr. indole 
maxime peculiari, Lips. 1821, p. 25 sqq. 


2Comparisons of points of coincidence, 
which, however, stand in need of critical 
sifting, see in Fr. Spanhemius, De auctore 
epistolae ad Hebraeos (Opp. t. ii., Lugd. Bat. 
1703, fol. p. 171 sqq.); Cramer, p. lxix. sqq., 
Petr. Hofstede de Groot, Dis- 


putatio, qua epistola ad Hebraeos cum Paulinis 


xx sqq:s 


epistolis comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826, 8. 


INTRODUCTION. 347 


without peculiar, individual, independent coloring in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews! The Apostle Paul regards as the most important fact in the 
history of salvation, the resurrection of Christ; by this did the work of 
salvation first receive the divine sanction and attestation; by it was Christ 
first by a divine deed proved to be the Son of God. Of the death of 
Christ, therefore, Paul speaks almost always in connection with the resur- 
rection. This importance, however, the resurrection of Christ has not 
for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Only incidentally, in the 
invocation xiii. 20, is it mentioned by him; in the body of the epistle, on 
the contrary, stress is laid exclusively upon the death of Christ and the 
heavenly high-priesthood, of which office the Saviour Christ, exalted to 
the right hand of God, is the occupant and fulfiller. In addition to this, 
the notion of xiorcc is different with our author from what it is with 
Paul. 
and the épya véuov, and has its object in particular in Christ, the author of 


Whereas with Paul the ziorce involves an opposition to the véuoc 


the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, understands thereby in 
general the believing, humble confiding in God’s grace and promises, in 
opposition to the seeing of their realization,—a phase of the conception 
which but rarely (comp. 2 Cor. v. 7) is met with in Paul. It is, moreover, 
a remarkable fact that no reference is made to the participation of the 
Gentiles in the Messianic kingdom,—although the author must have 
entertained the same views as Paul on this point, inasmuch as he regards 
Judaism only as an imperfect preparatory stage to Christianity, and 
demands a coming forth from the former, in order to become partakers of 
the blessings of the latter,—whence it seems to follow that the author 
found his life’s task not so much in the conversion of the Gentiles, as in 
the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen. Peculiar to this epistle is, further, 
the prevailing fondness for a typico-symbolic mode of contemplation,’ 


1Yet on account of this independence to 
regard the epistle, with Riehm (Lehrbegriff 
des Hebrderbriefs, Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859, II. p. 
861 ff.), after the example of R. Késtlin (Theol. 
Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 463 
ff.), also Ritschl (Entstehung der altkathol. 
Kirche, 2 Aufl., Bonn 1857, p. 159 ff.) and Weiss 
(Studien u. Kritiken, 1859, H. 1, p. 142 ff.), as 
not the work of a writer of the Pauline school, 
but to discover in it a later stage of develop- 
ment of the primitive apostolic Judaeo- 
Christianity, is a proceeding not warranted 
by any sufficient ground. There is the less 


reason for such judgment, inasmuch as a very 
close personal connection of the author of 
the epistle with Paul and his disciples and 
fellow-laborers is conceded; in the doctrinal 
conception of the epistle not only no con- 
tradiction of Paul is discovered, but, on the 
contrary, a higher agreement with him on all 
essential points; and it 1s, moreover, taken 
tor granted that the epistle arose through the 
incitement and under the influence of Paul- 
inism. 

2Comp. de Wette, “ Ueber die symbolisch- 


typische Lehrart des Briefes an die Hebr.” 


348 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


which is met with indeed in Paul’s writings (e.g. Gal. iv. 21 ff, 1 Cor. x. 
1 ff.), but yet only in isolated instances; and other peculiarities besides. 
Comp. Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebruerbr. 1. p. 221 ff., 385 ff., IL. p. 632 ff., 821 
ff.; Davidson, Introduction, I. p. 241 ff. 

(5) Decisive against Paul are, further, the citations from the Old Testa- 
ment. While Paul not merely makes use of the LX X., but is also at home 
in the original Hebrew text, and often independently translates this for him- 
self, for the most part also cites with more or less freedom and from mem- 
ory ; the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews follows the LX X exclusively, 
and generally with great exactness. He even bases an argument upon 
its inaccurate renderings (comp. specially x. 5-7), in such wise that he 
can have possessed no knowledge of the Hebrew, or at any rate but a very 
unsatisfactory knowledge,—a fact which even in early times was not over- 
looked by the opponents of the Pauline origin of the epistle (comp. 
Jerome on Isa. vi, 9, Opp. ed. Martianay, t. ili. p. 64: Pauli quoque idcirco 
ad Hebraeos epistolae contradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur 
testimoniis quae in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur). The references 
in detail see in Bleek, Abtheil. 1, p. 338-369. 

(6) The author describes, ix. 1-5, the arrangement of the Jewish sanc- 
tuary, and presupposes (ver. 6) that this still continues in its original form 
in the Jewish temple of his time. In so doing, however, he falls into 
divers historic errors (comp.*the exposition), such as would have been 
impossible with Paul, who had lived a considerable time in Jerusalem. 

(7) If Paul were the author, he would not have deviated from his con- 
stant practice of mentioning his name in an address prefixed to the epis- 
tle. For a tenable ground for such deviation is not to be discovered. 

Comp. Bleek, Abth. 1, p. 295 ff. 

. (8) Regarded in general, it is very improbable that Paul should have 
written an epistle to purely J udaeo-Christian congregations, to whom the 
epistle is, however, addressed (see sec. 2). For he would thereby have_ 
been untrue to his fundamental principle of not intruding into another 
man’s sphere of labor (Rom xv. 20; Gal. ii. 9). 

The arguments enumerated are in their totality of such constraining 
force that we can feel no surprise if, upon every revival of the critico- 
scientific spirit in the church, doubts, too, with regard to the Pauline 
origin of the epistle should always be excited afresh, after they had long 
seemed to have died out. At the time of the Reformation, Cajetan and 


(in the Theologiche Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, de Wette, and Lucke, Heft 3, Berlin 
1822, p. 1 ff). 


INTRODUCTION. 349 


Erasmus within the Catholic Church declared themselves against the claim 
of Paul to the authorship of the epistle. The former was on that account 
assailed by Ambrosius Catharinus; the latter was compelled to defend 
himself against the Sorbonne, and the Council of Trent suppressed all 
further expression of a freer judgment, in decreeing the epistle to be the 
fourteenth epistle of Paul.! Yet more decidedly was the Pauline author- 
ship of the epistle denied by the Reformers. Luther separated the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews from the letters of Paul in his editions of the New 
Testament, and placed it, with the Epistles of James and Jude and the 
Apocalypse, after “the right certain main books of the New Testament,” 
since those four books “ of old time (verzeiten) had another estimation put 
upon them.” “ First of all,” he says (see Walch, Thl. 14, p. 146 f.), “that 
this Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul’s or any other apostle’s, is 
shown thereby, that it stands in chap. ii. 3 thus: this doctrine has come 
down to us through those who themselves have-heard it of thte Lord. By 
this it is made clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom 
such doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after. For St. 
Paul, Gal. i. 1, powerfully attests that he has his gospel from no man, nor 
by man, but from God Himself. Besides this, it has a hard knot, in that 
it in chap. vi. and x. straightway denies and refuses repentance to sinners 
after baptism, and in xii. 17 says Esau sought repentance and yet did not 
find it. The which, as it sounds, seemeth to be against all gospels and 
epistles of St. Paul. And although one may make a gloss thereon, yet 
the words after all sound so clear, that I know not whether it will suffice. 
To me it seems that this isan epistle put together out of several parts, and 
not in regular order treating of one and the same thing. However this 
may be, it certainly is a wondrously fine epistle, which speaks in a mas- 
terly and solid way of the priesthood of Christ out of the Scriptures, and, 
moreover, finely and fully expounds the Old Testament. This is clear, 
that it comes from an excellent learned man, who was a disciple of the 
apostles, had learned much of them, and was firmly experienced in the 
faith and exercised in the Scripture. And though he, indeed, lays not the 
foundation of the faith, as he himself testifieth, chap. vi. 1, that which is 
the office of the apostles,—yet he builds thereon fine gold, silver, precious 
stones, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. iii. 12. On that account we shall not be 
troubled if perchance a little wood, straw, or hay be therewith mingled, 
but receive such fine teaching with all honor, without being able to equal 


4Fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546: Tes- Pauli apostoli, ad Romanos . . . ad Phileme 
tamenti Novi... quatuordecim epistolae nem, ad Hebraeos. 


300 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


it in all respects to the apostolic epistles. Who wrote it, however, is un- 
known, and will indeed remain unknown for awhile yet; but that is no 
matter. The doctrine shall content us, since this is so firmly based on 
and in the Scripture, and likewise shows a right fine grasp and measure 
As Luther, so also Mel- 


anchthon, the Magdeburg Centuriators, Lucas Osiander, Balduin, Hunnius, 


for reading and handling the word of Scripture.” 


and others, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle; and of the Reformed 
Church, Calvin, Beza, Jos. Scaliger, Dan. Heinsius, cum multis aliis. 
Later, however, even in the Protestant Church the supposition that Paul 
was the author became gradually again more general, and was after the 
beginning of the seventeenth century the ecclesiastically accepted opinion, 
from which only the Arminians and Socinians ventured to depart. A 
freer research was first set going again by Semler and Michaelis; it has 
almost universally decided unfavorably to Paul. Yet the theory of a 
directly Pauline origin has still found defenders in Storr, Hug, G. W. 
Meyer (in Ammon and Bertholdt’s Krit. Jowrnal der neuesten theol. Literat., 
Bd. ii. St.3, p. 225 ff), Heinreichs (but comp. the preface to the second 
edition), Hofstede de Groot (Disputatio, qua ep. ad Hebr. cum Paulinis epp. 
comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826), Moses Stuart, Gelpke ( Vindiciae originis 
Paulinae ad Hebraeos epistolae, nova ratione? tentatae, Lugduni Batav. 1832, 
8.), Paulus, Stein, Bloomfield (Greek Testament, 9th ed. vol. ii., Lond. 1855, 
p. 572 ff.), Biesenthal (Epistola_ Pauli ad Hebraeos cum rabbinico Commen- 
tario, Berol. 1857; Ztschr. f. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1866, H. 4, p. 616), J. 
Chr. K. vy. Hofmann (Der Schriftbeweis, II. 2,2 Aufl., Nérdling. 1860, p. 
105, 878; Die heil. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhiingend untersucht, Thi. 
5, Nordl. 1873, p. 520 ff.), Robbins (in Park and Taylor’s Bibliotheca Sacra, 
vol. xviii., Andover 1861, July, p. 469 ff.), W. Volck (in the Dorpat Ztschr.. 
fiir Theol. u. Kirche, Jahrg. 1869, Bd. ii. H. 4, p. 504 ff.), J. B. M‘Caul (The 
‘Epistle to the Hebrews in a Paraphrastic Commentary, with Illustrations from 
Philo, the Targums, the Mishna and Gemara, the later: Rabbinical Writers, 
etc., Lond. 1871, p. 4, 329), Joh. Wichelhaus (Akadem. Vorless. wher. das N. 


1 Yet, while the Lutheran Church preserved 
in its symbols a freer position towards the 
canon, the Reformed Church in the Confessio 
Belgica (cap. iv. p. 171 sq., ed. Augusti. Comp. 
also the Helvetica of 1566, cap. xi. p. 25 sq., 
xvi. p. 43, and the Bohemica of 1585, art. iv. p. 
281, vi. p. 286,xXx. p. 323) adopted the decision 
that Paul wrote fourteen epistles. 

2The nova ratio consists in the cireumstan- 


tial demonstration that the Epistle to the He- 


brews betrays an affinity to the writings of 
Seneca (!), mainly to his little book de Provi- 
dentia, which reaches so deeply that it cannot 
have arisen by accident. It is thus in all 
probability due to a personal intercourse of 
the writer of the epistle with Seneca,—a fact 
which is applicable only in the case of Paul, 
who, according to a trustworthy early 
tradition, was brought into communication 


with Seneca. 


INTRODUCTION. dol 


T., herausgeg. v. A. Zahn, Halle 1875, p. 3 f.), and Jatho (Blicke in die 
Bedeutung des mosaischen Cultus, Hildesh. 1876, p. 1 ff.); while Woerner 
(Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebraer,, Ludwigsb. 1876, p. 2538 f.) expresses 
himself with hesitation, and Guericke (Hinleitung in das N. T. p. 441), 
Delitzsch (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zischr. f. d. Iuth. Theol. 1849, p. 
266, and in the commentary), Ebrard, and some others seek at least to 
trace back the epistle indirectly to Paul, inasmuch as they suppose it to 
But that this 
last modification also is an untenable and unjustified one,is evident. For, 


have been written by his direction and under his oversight. 


of a fact of this kind there must of necessity be some indication found in 
the epistle itself; whereas this writing everywhere gives the impression of 
an independent work of an independent Christian teacher. So likewise, 
inasmuch as then, too, Paul would surely be the only representative of 
the subject-matter of the epistle, the meaning of such expressions as ii. 3 
and others would become more absolutely inexplicable. 

If the Epistle to the Hebrews can thus be neither directly nor indirectly 
a work of the Apostle Paul, the question further arises, whether the true 
author is still to be discovered with any degree of probability. The 
decision of some has been in favor of Barnabas, others of Luke, others of 
Clemens Romanus, others again of Silvanus, and others, finally, of 
Apollos. 

Barnabas has been looked upon as the author by J. E. Chr. Schmidt 
(Histor.-Krit. Hinlett. in’s N. T., Abth.1, p. 289 ff.), Twesten (Dogmatik. Bd. 1, 
4 Aufl. p. 95), Thiersch (De Epistola ad Hebr. commentatio historica, Marb. 
1848, p. 1"), Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Gotting, 1848, 
p. 504 ff.; Untersuchung tiber den Hebraerbrief, namentlich seinen Verfasser 
u. seine Leser, 1 Halfte [Schriften der Universitit zu Kiel aus dem Jahre, 
1860, 4, Bd. VII.; also printed separately, Kiel 1861, 8]), Adalb. Maier 
(Comment. wb. d. Br. an d. Hebr., Freib. im Br. 1861, p. 18 ff), Ritschl 
(Theol. Studd. u. Kritt. 1866, H.1, p. 89), and Renan (L’Antechrist, Paris 


1873, p. xvii. f. 210 f.).2— According to Wieseler, of all the claims to the 


1Yet Thiersch—and similarly Maier— vero Paulus sua manu adjecerit atque ita, 


assigns also a part in the composition of the 
epistle to the Apostle Paul. Thiersch says, 
t.c.: “ Barnabam igitur, qui et ipse gentium 
fuit apostolus, et Paulum communi consilio 
et conjuncta opera literas illas elaborasse 
existimo. Ita quidem ut in maxima parte 
Barnabas, vir ille dono prophetiae et fervore 


TrapakAjogews insignis agnoseatur, epilogum 


concedente Barnaba, suam fecerit epistolam.” 
Comp. also Thiersch, Die Kirche im apostol. 
Zeitalter, Frankf. and Erlangen 1852, 
197 ff. 

2Joh. Cameron is also named as a repre- 
sentative ef this view. Bleek (Abth. 1, p. 261, 
note 364) refers to Cameron’s Quaestio ii. wm 
Ep. ad Hebr., and Ullmann (p. 389, note) to hi 


BT THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


authorship, that of Barnabas is best vouched for by the tradition of an- 
tiquity. But in reality there remains only the single testimony (certainly 
a very definite one) of Tertullian (vide supra, p. 333 f.) in favor of Barnabas. 
For that it was also held in the majority of churches of the East to be a 
work of Barnabas, cannot be inferred, with Wieseler (comp. already UIl- 
mann, p. 391), from the words of Jerome (Epist. 129, ad Dardan., Opp. ed. 
Martianay, t. ii. p. 608): Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam, quae 
inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis orientis sed ab omnibus 
retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli apostoli sus- 
cipi; licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur, et nihil 
interesse, cujus sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit et quotidie ecclesiarum 
lectione celebretur. To supply a nostrorum to the plerique, with Tholuck 
and Delitasch, out of the preceding nostris, is indeed impossible; plerique 
can receive its more precise definition only either from the last member 
of the sentence beginning with ab, or else from the two such members. 
But it is in an equal degree unjustifiable, in connection with the latter 
supposition, to assign vel Barnabae, in distinct separation, to the ecclesiae 
orientis, and vel Clementis to the Graeci sermonis scriptores, and then to 
help out the verdict thus gained—to wit, that the majority in the East 
traced the epistle indeed to Paul, but derived its present Greek form from 
Barnabas—with the conjecture “ that the original tradition of those Eastern 
churches pointed to the sole authorship of Barnabas.” Rather is Jerome’s 
manner of expressing himself in the fore-cited passage in more than one 
respect inaccurate; inasmuch as he is, moreover, acquainted with Luke, 
asa third person who might be mentioned in the same category with 
Barnabas and Clement, and elsewhere is able to adduce only a single 
early authority in favor of the opinion that Barnabas composed the epistle, 
‘and this authority belonging not to the Eastern church, but to that of the 
West. The passage finds its corrective in the words of the Catalogus 
Seriptorum, c. 5 (Opp. ed. Martianay, t. iv. p. 103 sq.): Epistola autem, 
quae fertur ad Hebraeos, non ejus creditur propter stili sermonisque dis- 
tantiam, sed vel Barnabae juxta Tertullianum, vel Lucae evangelistae, 
juxta quosdam, vel Clementis Romanae ecclesiae episcopi, quem ajunt 
ipsi adjunctum sententias Pauli proprio ordinasse et ornasse sermone,— 
according to which Jerome was acquainted only with Tertullian as the 
representative of the view that Barnabas wrote the epistle. If, further, 


Myrothecium Evangelicum. But in the latter of the author as Apostolus, but certainly dis: 
work, at any rate, there is found no statement tinguishes him from the Apostle Paul. Comp, 
of this kind. Inthis Cameron usually speaks e.g. on Heb. vii. 18, ed. Salmur., 1677, 4, p. 270. 


\ 


INTRODUCTION. 3593 


Philastr'us, Haer. 89, observes: Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad 
Hebraeos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli, 
aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi, it is likewise entirely unprovable 
that the aut Barnabae did not refer merely to Tertullian. In like manner 
it does not, of course, at all follow, from the fact that the Epistle to the 
Hebrews is placed after the Pastoral Epistles in the Peshito, that the early 
Syrian Church regarded the epistle as the work of none other than Barna- 
bas. It is, in the last place, a mere assertion when we are told that in the 
Versus scribturarum sanctarum—an ancient stichometric catalogue of the 
sacred writings of the O. and N. T., which is preserved to us, inserted in the 
Codex Claromontanus between the Epistle to Philemon and that to the 
Hebrews (comp. Cod. Claromontanus, ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1852, 4, p. 468 
sq.)—the Epistle to the Hebrews bears the name of an Epistola Barnabae. 
(So first Credner in the Theol. Jahrbb. 1857, p. 307 ff.; Gesch. des Neutest. 
Kanon., Berl. 1860, p. 175 ff.) That catalogue presents only the words: 
Barnabae epist. ver. DCCCL; it simply mentions, therefore, the Epistle of 
Barnabas, and adds how many verses or lines (stichot) it contains. The 
supposition is thus only natural, that the same writing is meant which 
elsewhere in the early church bears the name of the Epistle of Barnabas, 
and in the Codex Sinaiticus is bound up with the canonical books of the 
New Testament. Nay, this supposition is raised entirely beyond doubt 
by the fact that, in addition to the “ Barnabae epist.,” and on the same 
level therewith, the Pastor, the Actus Pauli, and the Revelatio Petri, thus 
writings which in later time were just as little reckoned among the 
canonical books (the “ sanctae scribturae ” of the catalogue) as the Epistle 
of Barnabas, are likewise enumerated and stichometrically defined in this 
catalogue. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews, if this had been 
thought of in connection with the “ Barnabae epist.,” must at least have 
been denoted by the reading Barnabae ad Hebraeos epist.; as also Ter- 
tullian (comp. p. 7) did not deem the addition ad Hebraeos, for the desig- 
nation of our Epistle to the Hebrews, redundant. It is true the assertion 
has been made, that the number of lines mentioned points to the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. But we should be permitted to make a deduction from 
this number of lines, only in case the number of lines for the several books 
of the New Testament were a fixed one in the mss. It is, however, an 
altogether wavering and changing one. Thus the accounts of the lines 
for the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. Tischendorf, N. T. ed. 7, P. ii. p. 
596) vary between the numbers 703 and 830. Not one of these numbers 


reaches the sum of 850 mentioned in the catalogue. If, therefore, we are 
23 


304 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


to make any deduction at all from these data, we must rather suppose 
that the number 850 is much more favorable to the epistle otherwise 
known as the Epistle of Barnabas than to our Epistle to the Hebrews, 
since the former exceeds the latter in extent by about a third. (In the 
Codex Sinaiticus the Epistle of Barnabas occupies 533 columns, and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews 403.) It is asserted, further, that the Barnabae 
epist. of the catalogue must be regarded as the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
because it has obtained a place in the enumeration before the Revelation 
of John and the Acts of the Apostles, and so by the intervention of the 
two latter writings is separated from the Pastor, the Actus Pauli, and the 
Revelatio Petri. But this order of enumeration does not warrant such con- 
clusion, any more than a special mark of design is to be discovered in 
the unusual order of mentioning the Epistles to the Colossians and Phile- 
mon only after the Pastoral Epistles, which is observed in the same cata- 
logue. The consideration that, if our view be correct, the Epistle to the 
Hebrews has been entirely passed over without mention in the catalogue, 
can present no difficulty. We need not even suppose that the mention 
thereof has been overlooked in consequence of a mere blunder in copy- 
ing. This is indeed possible, since the Epistles to the Thessalonians and 
that to the Philippians have for a like reason been passed over unmen- 
tioned, and otherwise the negligence of the copyist displays itself in the 
catalogue, in the fact that the two Epistles of Peter, e. g., bear therein the 
appellations ad Petrum I. and ad Petrum Il. The non-mention of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews is rather to be explained simply from the fact, 
well known from other sources, that this epistle was not invested with any 
canonical authority in the early church of the West, from which this cata- 
logue comes down to us.—Favorable to the claim of Barnabas might 
- appear the historic incident of his receiving this his name (vide rapa- 
' KAfoews), according to Acts iv. 86, on account of his gifts of prophetic or 
spiritual utterance, with which the eloquent language of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews might be shown to accord. Nor would there be anything directly 
opposed to such view in the circumstance that in Acts xiii. 9 ff., 16 ff, xiv. 
9 ff., not Barnabas but Paul is described as the chief speaker, and that 
consequently the former is in Acts xiv. 12 compared to Zeus ; the latter, on 
the other hand, to Hermes. For although the Epistle to the Hebrews is 
superior in point of diction to the Pauline Epistles, a greater facility of 
graceful writing does not of necessity argue a greater facility of oral dis- 
course. In favor of Barnabas, might, further, his birth in Cyprus be sup- 
posed to plead, and consequently—since Cyprus was in various ways 


INTRODUCTION. 3099 


connected with Alexandria—the Alexandrian type of thought which 
appears in the epistle would not be inappropriate to him. But absolutely 
decisive against Barnabas is the fact that, according to Acts iv. 86, 87, he 
was a Levite, and must have long time dwelt in Jerusalem, since he even 
possessed land there. He must therefore have been more accurately 
informed with regard to the inner arrangements of the temple in Jerusa- 
lem at that time than was the case with the author of our epistle.! For 
the temple at Jerusalem is meant (see sec. 2), and not that at Leon- 
topolis in Egypt, as Wieseler supposes. 

Luke has been frequently regarded even in early times as at least the 
translator or the penman of the epistle; and a share in the work of its 
composition has been ascribed to him by Hug (in the later editions of his 
Einleit. in’s N. T.), and more recently Delitzsch (in Rudelb. and Guericke’s 
Zeitschr. fur. die Luth. Theol. 1849, H. 2, p. 272 ff, and in the Kommentar 
zum Hebr -Br. p. 704) and Ebrard, as also J. v. Déllinger (Christenthum 
u. Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p. 86), inasmuch as 
the first-named attributes to him the linguistic garb of the epistle, and the 
others assign to him the elaboration of the thoughts furnished to him by 
the Apostle Paul. As the independent composer, on the other hand, Luke 
has been regarded by Grotius and 8. Crell (in the pseudonymous writing, 
Artemonii initium ev. Joannis ex antiquitate ecclesiastica restitutum, P. 1, 1726, 
8, p. 98); and Delitzsch also (comp. his commentary on the Ep. p. 707) 
now holds this view to be at least possible. To the Pauline Christian 
Luke, certainly the self-characterizing of Heb. ii. 3 is appropriate (comp. 
Luke i. 2), as well as the purer Greek and the more skillful formation of 
periods. There are also to be discovered certain peculiarities in the 
phraseology—to which Grotius already calls attention—which are met 
with only in the writings of Luke and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Nevertheless, these points of contact are only of a subordinate nature, 
whilst side by side with them a thorough diversity of style and presenta- 
tion is to be observed. In Luke, where he writes independently, there is 
displayed a mere smoothness in the flow of the language; in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, on the other hand, a self-conscious majesty of rhetoric 
reveals itself. Moreover, there is nothing in Luke to correspond to the 
Alexandrian—Jewish spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The proof 
which Delitzsch has recently sought to establish in his commentary— 


11f the so-called Epistle of Barnabas were against the claim of Barnabas. But the gen- 
genuine, the diversity of character between uineness of that epistle is, to say the least, 
that and the Epistle to the Hebrews would doubtful. 
likewise form a decisive counter-argument 


356 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


namely, that the most decided similarity as regards the choice of words 
and the construction of the sentences connects the Epistle to the Hebrews 
with the writings of Luke, nay, that even in characteristic points of doc- 
trine a striking coincidence is to be observed between the respective writ- 
ings—was therefore predestined to failure. The evidence for his assertion 
has been scattered by Delitzsch through his whole commentary; and it 
almost seems as though this, for the reader and critic highly inconvenient 
mode of proceeding, had been chosen under the unconscious feeling that 
the evidence was not in a position to admit of synoptical classification, 
without in such case at once being laid bare in all its weakness. For; so 
soon as we critically sift that which has been uncritically piled together 
by Delitzsch ; so soon as we separate therefrom that which is not exclu- 
sively peculiar to Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews; sosoon as we 
also put out of the account that which Luke has only taken up out of the 
sources employed by him, and cease to lay any weight upon isolated 
expressions and turns of discourse which were the common property 
either of the Greek language in general, or of the later Greek in particular, 
and are only accidentally present in Luke and the Epistle to the He- 
brews,—there is nothing whatever left of an actual affinity, such as must 
of necessity admit of being traced out between works of the same author. 
That, namely, on which Delitzsch founds his argument is the following :— 

The particle re, i. 3, and fréquently, is but rarely found in the N. T. save 
in the writings of Paul, and more especially of Luke.—The middle zr oveio- 
Oat, i. 8, is a favorite one with Paul, and particularly so with Luke. It is 
here similarly used, as e.g. in defoere roveiodar, Luke v. 33; Phil. i. 4; 1 
Tim. ii. 1; xorerdv roveioSa, Acts viii. 2; avaBodjv pndepiav roeioda, Acts 
xxv. 17.—rapa, after the comparative, i. 4, is also not foreign to Luke 
- (Luke iii. 18).—0 é, i. 18, in the third place,.as Luke xv. 17; Acts xxvii. 14; 
’ Gal. iii. 23.—7 pooéyerv Trevi, i. 1, like mpooéyew roic Aahovuévorc, Acts Xvi. 
14.—ra dxovodévra, ii. 1,is the word of salvation, which in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews is nowhere called evayyéAvov, as also Luke in his writings (with 
the exception of Acts xv. 7, xx. 24) loves to express the idea of evayyéAvov 
by various forms of periphrasis.—ovve tewaprupe iy, il. 4, is formed after 
the manner of ovveritideodar, Acts xxiv. 9.—rockiAae duvdpece, ii. 4, has 
its analogon in Acts ii. 22 (comp. 2° Thess. ii. 9).—dcapuapripectas, 11. 6, 
is specially frequent in Luke, e.g. Acts xx. 23, xxiii. 11—The construction 
év yap T@ «.7.A,,i1. 8, corresponds entirely to that of Acts xi. 15.—apynyée, 
ii. 10, xii. 2, is the name which Jesus bears also in Acts iii. 15, v. 831— 
xatapyeiv, il. 14, a favorite word with Paul, is found besides in the N. T. 


INTRODUCTION. oor 


only in Luke xiii. 7.—d47 ov, ii. 16, occurs, it is trve, only here in the N. 
T.; but yet 67, which also is rare in the N. T., occurs with the greatest 
comparative frequency in Luke ii. 7. The coloring of the expression is 
thoroughly Lucan. The 6%ev, which is met with six times in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, is foreign to the letters of Paul, but occurs Acts xxvi. 19. 
‘Ouorw3 Hvac is employed exactly as Acts xiv. 11 in the cry of the men of 
Lystra. ‘IA doxeo¥ac has in Luke xviii. 13 its single parallel in the N. 
T. Kara ravra is, Acts xvii. 22, certainly to no less extent Lucan than 
Pauline. Ta rpd¢ ed occurs, indeed, elsewhere only v.1 and Rom. 
xv. 17; but at Luke xiv. 32, xix. 42, Acts xxviii. 10 (comp. also Luke xiv. 
28, Acts xxill. 30, according to the tertus receptus), ra mpéc is likewise 
found as a current form of expression.—divacaz, ii. 18, here, as with 
few exceptions throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, construed with the 
infinitive aorist, just as in Luke i. 20, 22, iii. 8, v. 12, and often.—zézov dev 
metpaoveic, ii. 18, has again its parallels in Luke; inasmuch as, accord- 
ing to Acts xx. 19, sufferings, as such, are recpaouoi; and according to 
Luke xxii. 28, the sufferings of the Lord in particular were so.—yéro you, 
iii. 1, vi. 4, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Luke v. 7.—« aravoeiv, 
ili. 1, x. 24, is a favorite word with Luke, e.g. xii. 24, 27, and often; comp. 
especially Acts xi. 6.—The yép, ili. 16, accentuating the question, is equally 
Lucan, Acts xix. 35, viii. 31, as Pauline, 1 Cor. xi. 22.—a22’ 02, iii. 16, is 
placed as in Luke xvii. 7 f.; comp. aada ri, Matt. xi. 7-9.—émayyedia, in 
the signification of assurance, promise, iv. 1, is of most frequent occurrence 
with Luke and Paul; and the combination with the bare infinitive, instead 
of rod ciceAdeiv, which recurs xi. 15, is like that of Acts xiv. 5.—eiayye- 
Aifecdar, iv. 2, used passively of the persons to whom glad tidings are 
proclaimed, is common to the Epistle to the Hebrews with Luke vii. 22, 
xvi. 16.—xairoz, iv. 3, is a particle, attested also Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 27, as 
well as xairovye and Kaiye aero KataBoAne Kéopmov, iv. 3, ix. 26, is not met 
with in the LXX., but is found in Luke xi. 50, and often elsewhere in the 
N. T.—With (4 6 Aédyo¢ rod Feod, iv. 12, we may compare, in addition 
to 1 Pet. i. 23, also Acts vii. 88 (Aéya Gévra); and roudrepoc ixép, iv.12, 
is construed as Luke xvi. 8.—évSupugoecc, iv. 12, occurs elsewhere only 
Acts xvii. 29; Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25.—xpareiv, iv. 14, vi. 18, with the geni- 
tive, as Luke viii. 54.—Of aodéveca, iv. 15, mention is made in Luke v. 15 
and other places; comp. Matt. vill. 17.—repixeiodai ru, v. 2, is found 
elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xxviii. 20.—The construction édé6facev 
yevn dqnvac, v. 5, issimilar to that of Luke ii.1; Acts xi. 25, xv. 10; Col. 


e 


iv. 6—Kadoag xai év érépw, V. 6, is similar to the reading of Acts xiii. 


358 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


30.—peTa Kpavyie tayupac kai dakpbor, vy. 7, reproduces the most 
salient features with which precisely Luke (xxii. 839-46) describes the 
agony of prayer in the garden, as these now force themselves upon the 
mind.—In the use of evAdBeva, v. 7, and evaaBeiodai, the Epistle to 
the Hebrews coincides in a characteristic way with the usage of Luke 
(apart from Acts xxiii. 10).—a76, v. 7, is employed exactly asin Luke xix. 
3, xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11—On aircoc, v.9, we have to com- 
pare apyyyéc, il. 10; Acts ili. 15, v. 31—gépeodas, vi. 1, expresses the 
idea of external impulse and forward pressing urgency, as Acts ii. 2—é 
Aédyoc tov Xptoroi, iv. 1,as 6 Adyoc Tov Kupiov OY Tov Seot= Td evayyéuov, MOSt 
frequently in the writings of Luke, who hardly ever uses evayyéAvov—The 
construction wet dvova amd, vi. 1, 1s Lucan, Acts viii. 22; moreover, mo- 
Teverv Ext Tov Vedv Or Tov Kipcov, Which is not entirely foreign to Paul’s 
writings, Rom. iv. 5, 24, is found with Luke, as well as mioretew eic, at least 
more ordinarily than with any other N. 'T. writer, Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, xvi. 
31, xxii. 19; and as to the thing intended, Acts xx. 21 is similar to Heb. 
vi. 1, inasmuch as in the former place 77 eic Sedv peravorav is employed 
with as little apparent significance, and as really deep significance, as in 
the latter place ricrewc éxi Yedv.—With reference to the delineation of the 
sin against the Holy Ghost, chap. vi. and x., the Epistle to the Hebrews 
has its immediate parallel in Luke xii, 8-10.—é7zi with a genitive, after a 
verb of motion, vi. 7, as Acts_x. 11, and frequently —eideroc, vi. 7, is in 
the N. T. a word of Luke’s, xiv. 35, ix. 62.—In vi. 9 also we hear the lan- 
guage of Luke. For as 7 éyouévy, Luke xiii. 38, Acts xx. 15, xxi. 26, xiii. 
44, denotes the day immediately following,so too éyéueva cwtnpiac, that 
which stands in immediate connection with the salvation, which has refer- 
— ence to the salvation.—The classic é eey with a following infinitive, vi. 13, 
_is Lucan, Luke vii..42, xii. 4; Acts iv. 14, xxv. 26. Considering the Lucan 
- form of the expression, it is doubly noteworthy that allusion is made pre- 

cisely in Luke’s writings, as well Luke i. 73 as Acts vii.17, to the solemn 

confirmation of the promise by an oath, Gen. xxii. 16 (comp. xxiv.7).—kai 

obtoc, Vi. 15, is used as Acts vii. 8, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 14, and also frequently 

with Paul.—The wév solitarium, vi. 16, belongs to the number of the not 

rare anacoluths, as well of Luke, e.g. Acts i. 1,as of Paul, e.g. Rom. xi. 13 

f—Bov2, vi. 17, of God’s gracious will, is an expression current with 
.Luke, vii. 30, Acts ii. 23, and frequently. With Paul, only Eph. i.11.—On 

tpdypara, vi. 18, we have to compare zpdyyzara, Luke i. 1.—xartragebyecr, 

‘i. 18, is found also Acts xiv. 6.—rarpiadpyye is a Hellenistic word, and 

in the N. T. Lucan; it occurs elsewhere only Acts ii. 29, vii. 8, 9.—iepa- 


INTRODUCTION. 359 


reia, vii. 5, the epistle hasin common with Lukei.9 (comp. i. 8: iepa- 
Tevew).—To0vT é~oTcv, K.7.A, Vil. 5,18 a Hebraistic mode of expression, as 
Acts li. 80.—aprupeio tar, vil. 8, xi. 2, is a favorite expression as well in 
the Acts, vi. 3, x. 22, xvi. 2, xxil. 12, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It 
is found, besides, only once with Paul and once with John.—éviora- 
ofa, vil. 11, to be set up by God upon the theatre of history, as Acts iii. 22, 
vii. 87; and according to the ordinary interpretation, also Acts xiii. 32.— 
mpooéy ery revi, vil. 13, as 1 Tim. iv. 13, comp. Acts xx. 28.— cig, vii. 14, 
as Actsii. 25; Eph. v. 82.—ei¢ 16 wavredéc, vil. 25, is found again in the 
N. T. only Luke xiii. 11—The avayxyv éyew conjoined with the infinitive, 
vil. 27,is Lucan, Luke xiv. 18, xxiii. 17; while Luke in the Gospel and 
Acts employs, instead of avagépecy in the sense of offering, the expres- 
sion zpoogépecv, likewise usual in our epistle—aiyd ivdc, viii. 2, the 
epistle has in common with Luke xvi. 11 and the three Johannine writ- 
ings, and besides these only 1 Thess. i. 9.—Aarpetecy, viii. 5, is specially 
frequent in the writings of Luke.—The passive use of ypyuarilecbar, 
viii. 5, is found also in Acts x. 22, Luke ii. 26, and twice in Matt.—To the 
passage of Scripture cited, vill. 5, Stephen refers in Acts vii. 44. This is 
again to be noted as a Lucan parallel.—ayeurros, viii. 7, passively, as 
Luke i. 6, and everywhere in the N. T.—The mode of expression, { nreiv 
térov, vill. 7 (comp. Térov eboickew, xii. 17), is similar to that of rérov 
AauBavev, Acts xxv. 16; térov didéva, Rom. xii. 19.—ércxeio daz, ix. 10, 
with the subsidiary idea of pressing and burdening, as Acts xv. 10, 28.— 
With wéxpe katpov dcopAdceas, ix. 10, we have to compare Acts xxiv. 8, 
where the text wavers between d.op§aydtov and kafopboydtwv.—r apayiyvec- 
Gaz, ix. 11, is the usual word for historic self-presentation and presence, 
Luke xii. 51; Matt. iii. 1; 1 Mace. iv. 46.—ob yerpororgrov, ix. 11, 24,isa 
word of Luke’s in like connection, Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24.—To 10 idvov aia, 
ix. 12, xiii. 12, a parallel is presented in Acts xx. 28.—A trpwoce, ix. 12, is, 
along with aroAttpwore, a word of Luke’s, Luke i. 68, ii. 88; comp. aroaé- 
tpworc, Luke xxi. 28 (in the usage of Paul the only word) ; Avrpote6a, Luke 
xxiv. 21; Avrpwrjc, Acts vil. 85.—dv4, ix. 14, of the inner principle, just as 
Acts 1.2, xi. 28, xxi. 4.—The mode of expression, 24a Beiv ty» éxayyediay, 
ix. 15, xi. 13, in the sense of the taking to oneself the very blessing pro- 
mised, the epistle has in common with Acts ii. 33.—As to ix. 15, the most 
apt N. T. linguistic parallel is Acts xiii. 38 f.,so also in expression and 
thought everything is Lucan. To be compared is Acts iii. 25; Luke xxii. 
29 f.—On rovro 7rd ala, ix. 20, which, as seems probable, consciously or 
involuntarily refers to the words of the Supper, we have to observe that 


360 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


in these the éoriv is wanting only with Luke, xxii. 20; although they read 
similarly in Matt.and Mark.—o yedév, ix. 22, occurs only twice besides in 
the N. T., and precisely with Luke, Acts xiii. 44, xix. 26. On each occa- 
sion it stands in immediate connection with rac¢.—ageoce, sc. duaptiar, ix. 
22, commonly met with in Luke’s writings—To aivarek y voia, ix. 22, 76 
imép tuav éxxvvouevov, Luke xxii. 20 (comp. xi. 50), forms verbally and really 
the most natural parallel.—éugaviferv, ix. 24, xi. 14, is a word common 
to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and especially Luke, who employs it as 


a“ 


well in the signification “ make known,” Acts xxiii. 22, as “ present one- 
self, appear,” Acts xxiv. 1 (= éudavifew ti éavtév= éudaivecbat).—a 7 0 Ke io- 
Gaz, ix. 27,is in the N. T. common to Luke xix. 20; with Paul, Col. i. 5; 
2 Tim. iv. 8.—éx devrépov, ix, 28, as Acts x. 15, xi. 9, and elsewhere.— 
The construction of rateo#a: with the participle, x. 2, for the rest the usual 
one, is the same as Acts v. 42, ov« éxatovto diddoKovtes.—avaipeiv, X.9, is a 
favorite word with Luke.—repvedeiv, x. 11, as Acts xxvii. 20, repiypeiro 
maoa éAric.—rapofvoudc, x. 24, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts 
xv. 39, there in a good sense, and here in a bad sense.—riw pia, x. 29, is 
found only here in the N. T.; to be compared, however, is Acts xxii. 5, 
xxvl. 1l— 7d trap yorra, x. 34, with the genitive, as e.g. Luke xi. 21 
(with the dative, e.g. Luke viii. 3)—7 poodéyeoda, x. 34, of willing re- 
ception, as e.g. Luke xv. 2.—irapécc, x. 34, is a word of Luke’s, Acts ii. 
45.—el var tivdc, X. 89, with personal subject and genitive of the property, 
as Luke ix. 55 (Rec.); Acts ix. 2—The infinitive with Tov, Xi. 5, a not un- 
classic form of expression, is in the N. T. specially peculiar to Luke.— 
éxCnrteiv, xi. 6, as Acts xv. 17; Rom. iii. 11—The construction of rod 
with the indicative, xi. 8, is as Acts xx. 18, x. 18, xv. 36, and frequently 
elsewhere.—r ap&kyjoev, xi. 9,18 equivalent to rapouxeivy 72Hev, of which 
the style of Luke presents not a few examples. Apart from the most 
‘similar passage, Luke xxiv. 18, raporkeic el¢Iepovoadfu, where this reading 
is too ill attested, we have to compare Acts vii. 4, ic fv dpeic viv KaTotKeire ; 
Xl. 19, ete rHV Kavodpecav dvétpeBev; Luke xi. 7; Acts viii. 40, and xviii. 21,7 
xix. 22, Ree —ric imayyehiac tHe airHe, Xi. 9, is written instead of cis 
aiTa¢ éxayy., aS elsewhere only Luke ii. 8—Corresponding to the kai airy 
Lappa, xi. 11, there is found also in Luke kai airée¢ in like position with 
proper names, Luke xx. 42, xai abric Aavid; xxiv. 15, kat abrdc Ijoove ; comp. 
Acts vill. 13, Ziuwv cai aitée— For the combination divayce eic, xi. 11, 
only Luke v. 17, divayig kvpiov jv eic rd tacba aitovc.—The 616 cai, xi. 12, 
Xili. 12, bringing cause and effect, means and end, reason and consequence 
into very close reciprocal relation, is equally Lucan (Luke i. 35; Acts x. 


INTRODUCTION. 361 


29, xiii. 85) as Pauline.—amofvjox evv, xi. 21, to lie a-dying, as Luke viii. 
42.—aoreiov, xi. 28, comp. doreiov TO Ge@, Acts vii. 20.—é ri, xi. 30, of the 
space of time, as Luke iv. 25; Acts xiii. 31, xix. 10.—The mode of expres- 
sion épyadfec@ac dtkatocbyvyny, xi. 33, recurs also Acts x. 35 (comp. Jas. i. 
20).—The phrase oréua payaipac, xi. 34, is Lucan, Luke xxi. 24—To 
the iva kpeitrovog avactacewc Thyworr, Xi, 35, a parallel is presented 
by rvyxavew avactdcewc, Luke xx. 39.—The heightening érz dé, xi. 36, is 
met with also Luke xiv. 26; Acts il. 26—téo7repotpmevor, xi. 87, is used 
absolutely, as in Luke xv. 14; Phil. iv. 12, al—We are reminded as well 
by mapakanoce as by dbcadéyerar, xii. 5, of Luke in the Acts. There 
we meet with tapaxAnore of apostolic address, going to the heart, Acts 
xiii. 15, xv. 31 (comp. also 1 Tim. iv. 18); there also d:aAéyeo6a, in the 
inchoative sense: “to open a conversation, to enter upon it,” is the con- 
stant word for the standing up of Paul among the Jews, Acts xvii. 2, 17, 
xviii. 4, and often besides—On greg dcadéyetas, xii. 5, we have to com- 
pare Luke xi. 49: 7 cogia tov Geov eimev.petarauBdaverv, xii. 10, is (be- 
sides 2 Tim. ii. 6) the word common to the Epistle to the Hebrews and the 
Acts for “to become possessed of,’ i. e. to come into the enjoyment or pos- 
session of a thing.—dé waAdov, xii. 13, as Luke x. 20 (Rec.).—The combi- 
nation pila rixpiac, xii. 15, comp. vod? mixpiac, Acts vill. 23; and the 
verb évoydAciv, Luke vi. 18 (according to A B L, al.), comp. oyAciv, Acts 
v.16; and rapevoyiseiv, Acts xv. 19, is Lucan—The accus. cum infin. up 
mpootedqvar avtoicg Adyor, xii. 19, governed by the tapytHoavrTo, em- 
ployed, as ver. 25, Acts xxv. 11, in the sense of “ begging off from, declin- 
ing with entreaty ” (pure Greek, with 7 in the infinitive clause), resembles 
Luke xx. 27.—évrpoyoe, xit. 21, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts 
Vil. 32, xvi. 29—Iepovoadagy, xii. 22, is the form of the name with Luke, 
Paul, and in the Apocalypse.—a7oyeypappévov év ovpavoig, xii. 23, has 
its parallel in Luke x. 20: ra dvéuara ipav éypadyn év Toic¢ obpavoic; and the 
verb aroypdadecba:, in Lukeii. 1, 3,5.—Aéyov, xii. 26, the Hebrew TON), 
is employed as in Luke i. 63, and frequently in the N. T., specially with 
Luke.—The neuter plural of the subject, 7a «7 cadevémeva, xii. 27, is 
combined with the singular of the predicate yeivy, as Acts i. 18, xxvi. 24; 
and the perfect is followed by the subjunctive (conjunctive) aorist, as e.g. 
Acts ix. 17.—étyerv yapcyr, xii. 28, to cherish and manifest gratitude, as 
Luke xvii. 9; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 3—The conception in the exhorta- 
tion, xiii. 7, is out and out Lucan. For jyotmevor is the Lucan apellative 
of the leaders of the congregation, Acts xv. 22, comp. Luke xxii. 26, else- 
where only Heb. xiii. 17, 24. Paul says similarly, zpoictdyevor, 1 Thess. 


362 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


v.12. Then Aadeiv rdv Adyov rod Geowv isthe ordinary Lucanic expres- 
sion for the preaching of the gospel, Acts iv. 31, viii. 25, xiii. 46, and often. 
The verb avafewpeiv, of continued penetrating contemplation, occurs 
again, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, only Acts xvii. 28. And for 
éxBacce (1 Cor. x. 18), of the end of life, or as it is here designedly termed, 
of the walk, Luke has at least the synonymous expressions é£odoc, Luke 
ix. 31, and ag@Evc, Acts xx. 29.—aAvoiteréc, xiii. 17, does not occur else- 
where in the N. T., but AvorreAet is found Luke xvii. 2.—revAéue0a, xiii. 
18, is Lucan, according to Acts xxvi. 26.—éivdziov tov Oeod, xiii. 21, is 
with Luke, much more than with Paul, a favorite expression, and to the 
preface to the wish (ver. 20) there is no more fitting parallel than Acts xx. 
28, where the church of the Lord is, as here, designated as a flock which 
He has purchased by His own blood.—xiii. 22 is altogether Lucan: avé- 
xveo8as, to give a patient, willing hearing, Acts xviii. 14, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 
4; Adyoc rapakdagoewc, Acts xill. 15; éxcoréArecy (like mittere), to write 
a letter, elsewhere only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25.—The azoAtecy, not occurring 
with Paul, is employed in the style of Luke, as well of release from custody 
or prison (apart from Luke xxii. 68, xxiii. 16 ff, e.g. Acts iii. 18, iv. 21), as 
of official delegation, Acts xiii. 3, xv. 30 (for which Paul has réurew; e. g. 
2 Thess. iii. 2); solemn dismission, Acts xv. 33; and in general, dismissal, 
Acts xix. 41, xxiii. 22.—oi aré tic ’Iradiac, xiii. 24, denotes the Italiotes, 
according to the usage of Luke, Acts x. 28, 38, xii. 1, xvii. 13, xxi. 27. 
That which Delitzsch adduces besides (in the commentary, p. 705 f.) in 
favor of Luke as the penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in favor 
of a joint-participation of the Apostle Paul in the composition thereof, 
namely—(1) that the worldly calling of Luke as a physician (Col. iv. 14) 
_ isin striking keeping with the conformation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
-Inasmuch as this, so to speak, contains an anatomic (iv. 12 f.), a dietetic 
~(v. 12-14), and a therapeutic passage (xii. 12 f.), and much besides which 
would seem appropriate to the pen of a physician; as, e.g., the use of 
vuipoc, V. 11, vi. 12; Bpdyata kai réuata (as with Hippocrates, ed. Littré, i. 
622, iv. 380), in connection with which it might perhaps be observed that 
ércyesperv, aS employed Luke i. 1, is a favorite word of Hippocrates; (2) 
that it is hardly accidental that the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to 
its earliest location, followed immediately upon the Epistle to Philemon, 
among the last words of which occurs the name of Luke; (8) that it is 
hardly accidental, that just where the author of the Acts begins to relate 
with “we” (xvi. 10), the account of the association of Timothy with Paul 
has preceded; and, finally, (4) that it is hardly accidental that the Epistle 


INTRODUCTION. 


363 


to the Hebrews begins in a manner so strongly alliterating on the name 


IAYAOS,—all these are arguments which ought not to have been found 


at all, in a work which lays claim to a scientific character. 


Fully decisive against Luke is the consideration that he, according to 


Col. iv. 14 as compared with Col. iv. 11, was a Gentile-Christian,’ whereas, 


as is universally admitted, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews can 


only have been a born Jew. 


That this counter-moment is not to be set 


aside by the shift of Delitzsch (in the dissertation, p. 274), to the effect that 
Luke, as is made manifest in his other writings, had “enough lived him- 


self into that which was Jewish and Christian ” to be able to compose the 


epistle “in accordance with the hints 


” of Paul, is self-evident. 


The claim of Clemens Romanus to the authorship has been favored by 


some among the moderns. 


Erasmus was inclined to regard him as such; 


and, finally, Bisping, following the example of Reithmayr (Einleit. in die 
kanon. BB. des N. T., Regensb. 1852, p. 681 ff.), has decided in favor of 


Clement. In order, however, not t 


o approach the declaration of the 


Council of Trent too nearly, Bisping assumes that Clement prepared the 


epistle independently as a sort of homily, only as far as xiii. 17, to which 


xiii. 18 ff. was then added as a brief supplement by the Apostle Paul, in 


order thereby to adopt the whole letter as his own. 


But—apart from the 


fact that xiii. 18 ff. can proceed from no other author than that of the 


whole preceding letter, inasmuch as a change of the speaking subject is 


11f J. N. Tiele (in the Theol. Studien und 
Kritiken, 1858, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) has sought to 
prove from the many Hebraisms in the 
writings of Luke that he must have been a 
Jew by birth, that is altogether wide of the 
truth, since those Hebraisms in Luke are to 
be set down only to the account of the sources 
from which he draws.—Delitzsch also (in the 
commentary, p. 705) now holds that the deduc- 
tion of Luke’s Gentile origin, made from Col. 
iv. 11, 14, is by no means certain (yet without 
advancing his reasons for this judgment); 
and Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. 2, 2 Autfi., 
Nérdl. 1860, p. 99 f., directly disputes the 
soundness thereof. . But neither do passages 
like Acts xx. 6, xxvii. 9, point to a born Jew 
as the author of this work, as is supposed by 
Hofmann; nor ean, in Col. iv. 10, 11, the sense 
be found, with Hofmann, that while, on the 
one hand, Aristarchus had come to Rome 
with Paul and belonged to his well-known 


surroundings; of the number of Jewish- 
Christians, on the other hand, beyond those 
of his own company, who were teaching the 
word of the gospel in Rome, only Mareus and 
Jesus united with him in harmonious work- 
ing. For of such diversity of character in 
the relations of the three persons mentioned, 
towards each other and towards Paul, neither 
6 guvatxuadwtos pov, Ver. 10,—which, as is 
evident from yer. 23 of the contemporaneous 
Epistle to Philemon, can only be understood 
figuratively,—nor any other expression 
affords a hint; ot évtes éx mepiTomis’ obTor 
povoe k.7.A. (ver. 11) cannot therefore be re- 
ferred back simply to Mdpxos and “Iygovs, 
but must at the same time be referred to 
*Apiotapxos, unless that which naturally be- 
longs to one whole is to be unnaturally dislo- 
cated and rent asunder. The demonstrative 
force of Col. iv. 11, 14 continues accordingly 


to assert itself in undiminished vigor. 


364 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


nowhere indicated, but, on the contrary, the opposite clearly presupposed 
in ver. 22—the sentences in the first, indisputably genuine, Epistle of 
Clement to the Corinthians, which in point of contents and composition 
remind of the Epistle to the Hebrews (vid. supra, p. 7 t.), have evidently 
only been taken over by him from this epistle, in consequence of a use 
and imitation thereof. For, as regards originality and grasp of mind, the 
Epistle of Clement is far inferior to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In other 
respects, the character of the respective writings is too greatly diverse for 
them to be able to proceed from one and the same author. Of the Alex- 
andrian speculative mind, and the oratorical flight of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, not a trace is found in the Epistle of Clement. 

Of Silvanus have Bohme and Mynster (Kleine theol. Schriften, Copenha- 
gen 1825, p. 91 ff., and Studien wu. Kritiken, 1829, H. 2) thought ; and Riehm 
also (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. II. p. 893) regards this supposition as possi- 
ble. But Silvanus was, according to Acts xv. 22, originally a member of 
the Christian congregation at Jerusalem. He, too, must thus have had a 
more exact acquaintance with the temple of that day, than is displayed 
by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

The opinion that Apollos was the author of this epistle was first 
broached by Luther. Comp. on Gen. xlviii. 20 (ed. Witeberg. 1561, t. vi. 
p. 710): autor epistolae ad Hebraeos, quisquis est, sive Paulus, sive, ut 
ego arbitror, Apollo.—Sermon von den Sekten, 1 Cor. iii. 4 ff. (with Walch, 
Th. xii. p. 1996): “This Apollo was a highly intelligent man ; the Epistle 
Hebraeorum is of a truth his.”—Epist. am Christtag., Heb, i. 1 ff. (with 
Walch, Th. xii. p. 204): “That is a stout, powerful, and lofty epistle, 
which soars high, and treats of the sublime article of faith in the Godhead 
of Christ; and it is a credible opinion that it is not St. Paul’s, for the rea- 
‘son that it maintains a more ornate discourse than is the wont of St. Paul 
in other places. Some think it is St.“Luke’s, some St. Apollo’s, whom St. 
Luke extols as having been mighty in the Scriptures against the Jews, 
Acts xviii. 24. It is indeed true that no epistle wields the Scripture with ~ 
such force as this; that it was an excellent apostolic man, be he whoso- 
ever he may.” Luther’s conjecture has been accepted by Lucas Osiander, 
Clericus, Heumann (Schediasma de libris anonymis ac pseudonymis, Jenae 
1711, 8, p. 38 sqq.), Lorenz Miiller (Dissertatt. de eloquentia Apollinis, viri 
apostolici, Schleus. 1717), Semler (in his “Contributions to a more accu- 
rate understanding of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” prefixed to Baumgar- 
ten’s commentary, p. 15 f.; yet he expresses himself with hesitation), 
Ziegler (Vollstand. Hinleit. in den Br. an die Hebr., G6tting. 1791, 8, p. 255 


INTRODUCTION. 365 


ff.), Dindorf (on EHrnesti lectt. p. 1180); and recently by Bleek, Tholuck, 
Credner, Reuss, Bunsen (Hippolytus und seine Zeit, Bd. I., Leipz. 1852, p. 
365), Henry Alford (Greek Testament, vol. iv. P. 1, Lond. 1859, Prolegg. p. 
58 ff.), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. I. p. 894), which last, however, 
only claims the same degree of probability in favor of Apollos as of Silva- 
nus; Biumlein (Commentar iib..d. Ev. des Joh., Stuttg. 1863, p. 26), Samuel 
Davidson (Introduction, p. 255 ff.), J. H. Kurtz (der Br. an die Hebr. erkl., 
Mitau 1869, p. 55 f.), Hilgenfeld (Hist.-krit. Hinl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875, 
p. 3896, 386 ff.), and others, even by the Catholics Feilmoser (Hinl. in’s N. 
T. p. 859 ff.) and Lutterbeck (Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, Bd. IL., 
Mainz 1852, p. 101 ff.).1_ It is, moreover, the only correct one. The men- 
tal portrait which we are compelled to form to ourselves of Apollos, in 
harmony with the notices of the Acts (xviii. 24 ff.) and the First Epistle 
to the Corinthians (chap. i-iv., xvi. 12), harmonizes exactly with the 
traits in which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has unconsciously 
depicted himself. This agreement is so striking and reaches so deeply, 
that as against it, seeing the lack of a definite tradition coming down from 
the apostolic age, the circumstance becomes of no moment, that among 
the conjectures of the ancients not one has lighted upon Apollos as the 
author of the epistle. Apollos was no immediate disciple of the Lord, 
but belonged to a second generation of Christians. By friends of Paul he 
was more deeply instructed in Christianity, and lived on terms of inti- 
macy with Paul himself. He was, however, as a Christian teacher, too 
original and prominent for standing merely in the relation of an apostolic 
helper. He was a Jew by birth, and his labors as a Christian teacher 
were directed by preference to the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen ; on 
which account the personal acquaintance of the author of the epistle with 
the Palestinian Jewish-Christians, presupposed Heb. xi. 19, can least of 
all surprise us in the case of Apollos. He was a native of Alexandria, 
versed in the Scriptures, and qualified for expounding and applying the 
same, and for deducing therefrom the proof that Jesus is the Messiah. 
Appropriate to him as an Alexandrian is the preponderantly typico-sym- 
bolic mode of teaching in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the endeavor to 
point out under the veil of the letter a deeper spiritual meaning. He 
was above all distinguished by the gift of brilliant eloquence. In him, 
finally, as an Alexandrian Jew, the exclusive use of the LXX., as well as 


1According to Lutterbeck, however, the Luke, Clement, and others of the Pauline 
Apostle Paul must have added the last nine school, have issued the epistle. 


terses, and Apollos, in communion with 


366 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the want of acquaintance with the internal arrangement of the temple in 
Jerusalem at that time, need cause no surprise. 

That, if we are to fix upon a particular person as the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, this can be no other than Apollos, because con- 
tents and form of the epistle are so admirably fitting to no other Christian 
teacher of the apostolic age as to this, is admitted also by W. Grimm 
(Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 74 ff.). He finds, however, an instance of 
decisive counter-evidence against Apollos in the passage Heb. ii. 3 as 
compared with Acts xviii. 24-28. For, according to Heb. ii. 3, the mes- 
sage of salvation had come to the author of the epistle, equally with his 
readers, by the instrumentality of those who had heard the Lord Him- 
self; whereas, according to the Acts, Apollos, as a disciple of John, had 
been only in the vestibule of Christianity, and had been first introduced 
into the sanctuary thereof by means of the Christians Aquila and Pris- 
cilla, who were converts of Paul’s, But apart from the fact that—as 
Grimm himself acknowledges—the narrative of Acts xviii. 24 ff. is so far 
obscure and not free from self-contradiction, as it represents Apollos, 
although he knew only the baptism of John, nevertheless as xatyyypévog 
tiv ddov Tov Kupiov, and an akpLBd¢ diddoKew Ta wept Tov ’"Inood is attri- 
buted to him (ver. 25)—we must remember that at Heb. ii. 3 recipients 
and author of the epistle are characterized only as belonging to a second 
generation of Christendom. Not that every single one of the persons 
mentioned ver. 3 had received the word of salvation at the mouth of im- 
mediate ear-witnesses, or were by these specially received into instruction, 
is expressed ; but only that the message of salvation was handed down in a 
certain and trustworthy way from the original ear-witnesses to the totality 
of the Christian circle which is formed by the jueic, and thus came to the 
knowledge of each single one of this totality. Even, therefore, if Apollos 
had not been directly brought into any intercourse with the axotcavrec, 
yet the passages Acts xviii. 24 ff. and Heb. ii. 3 would not be irreconcil- 
able the one with the other. But is it at all conceivable that such a 
leading Christian teacher as Apollos, who continued in such intimate 
association with the Apostle Paul, should come into no personal contact 
whatever with the original apostles ?—To the further objections brought 
by Grimm against the Apollos-theory, he himself attaches no decisive 
weight. They are the following :—(1) In connection with a former disci- 
ple of John, it must appear exceedingly strange that he makes no men- 
tion, i. 1, of the distinguished position occupied by John the Baptist, as 
the greatest prophet (Luke vii. 28, Matt. xi. 11) and forerunner of the 


INTRODUCTION. 367 


Lord, towards the kingdom of God; (2) Clemens Romanus, although 
making frequent use of the epistle, could hardly have known it as a work 
of Apollos, since it would otherwise have only been natural that he 
should, in the 47th chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians, have re- 
minded the Corinthian Christians of our epistle as a work of Apollos. 

” But that Clement must necessarily have so acted cannot be maintained. 
For a reference to John the Baptist, however, Heb. i. 1 offered no occasion 
whatever; because it was with the author only a question of contrasting 
with each other the revelations of the Old Testament and that of the New 
Testament as such. 


SEC. 2.—THE PERSONS ADDRESSED." 


That the epistle was designed for a Jewish-Christian circle of readers is 
not only universally acknowledged, but also becomes so palpably certain 
from contents and aim (comp. sec. 3), that Roeth’s supposition of the 
opposite (Hpistolam vulgo “ad Hebr.” inscriptam non ad Hebr., i.e. Chris- 
tianos genere Judaeos, sed ad Christianos genere gentiles et quidem ad Ephesios, da- 
tam esse, Francof. ad Moen. 1836, 8) can only be regarded as a manifest error. 
But likewise the view represented by Braun, Lightfoot (Harmony of the 
New Testament, I. p. 840), Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Stenglein (/.c. p. 61, note, 
p- 90), and Schwegler (Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Bd. I. p. 304), that the 
epistle was addressed, without respect to any particular locality, to all 
Jewish-Christians in general, is one which is characterized a priori as abso- 
lutely untenable. For everywhere throughout the epistle are individual 
wants of the readers presupposed, such as were by no means common to 
all Jewish-Christians ; and even the personal references, V. 2, vi. 10-12, 
x. 32 ff, xii. 4, xiii. 7, 19, 28, 24, suffice to show that the author had before 
him a definite, locally-bounded circle of readers. How could the author, 
among other things, promise his readers a speedy visit (xiii. 23), if he had 
thought of them as the J ewish-Christians scattered in all lands? 

The Jewish-Christians in all Asia Minor, or at least in Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Asia proconsularis, have been regarded as the 
original recipients of the epistle by Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid (Observatt. super 
ep. ad Hebr. p. 16 sq.), and Cramer; those in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and 
Greece, by W. Wall (Brief Critical ‘Notes, etc., Lond. 1780, p. 318) and 
Wolf; the Laodiceans, by Stein (Komment. zu dem Ev. des Lucas, Halle 
1830, p. 289 ff.); the Galatians, by Storr and Mynster (Kleine theol. Sch rif- 


1Comp. my Whitsuntide Programm: De literarum, quae ad Hebraeos inseribuntur, primis 
lectoribus, Gott. 1853. 


368 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


ten, Copenhag. 1825, p. 91 ff.); the Lycaonians, by Credner (inl. in d. N: 
T., Th. 1, Abth. 2, Halle 1836, p. 564); the Antiochians, by Béhme and 
Hofmann (Die h. Schr. N. T., Th. 5, p. 531); the Cyprians, by Ullmann 
(Studien u. Kritiken, 1828, p. 397); those in one of the numerous Greek 
cities on the coast of Asia Minor, or of Syria and Palestine, by Grimm 
(Theolog. Literat.-Bl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 
660; but not decidedly); the Macedonians, specially those of Thessa- 
lonica, by Semler (in Baumgarten, p. 37 ff.) and Nésselt (Opuscc. ad inter- 
pretationem sacrarum scripturarum, Fasc. I., Halae 1785, p. 269 sqq.); those 
of Corinth, by Mich. Weber (De numero epistolarwm ad Corinthios rectius 
constituendo, Wittenb. 1798-1806) and Mack (Theolog. Quartalschr. 1838, H. 
3); those of an Italian congregation, perhaps of the great city Ravenna, 
by Ewald (Gott. gel. Anzz. 1863, p. 286; cf. Gesch. Isr., Bd. VI. p. 638, Das 
Sendschreiben an die Hebr., G6tt. 1870, p. 6); those of Rome, by Wetstein 
(Nov. Test. I. p. 386 sq.), and recently by R. Késtlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of 
Baur and Zeller, 1850, H. 2, p. 242), who, however, afterwards withdrew 
this opinion (vid. infra); by Holtzmann (Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1859, H. 2, 
p. 297 ff., in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, VIII., and in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. 
Theol., 1867, H. 1, p.1ff.), by Alford (Greek Test., vol. IV. part 1, Lond. 
1859, Prolegg. p. 62 ff.), by Kurtz, p. 42 ff, by Renan (L’ Antechrist, Paris, 
1873, p. xviii. ff., 211), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Hinleitl. in das N. T., 3 Aufl., 
Berl. 1875, p. 612 f.), and by Harnack (Patr. Apostt. Opp. I. p. 1xxxii.); 
those of Spain, finally, by Nicolaus de Lyra (in the Prooemium to the 
epistle) and by Ludwig (in Carpzov’s Sacr. Evercitt. in St. P. ep. ad Hebr., 
Helmst. 1750, p. lix. sq.). 

_ All these opinions, however, which in part rest upon the erroneous sup- 
position that the epistle is the work of the Apostle Paul, find their refuta- 
tion at once in the fact that it cannot have been addressed to so-called 
mixed assemblies, Gonsisting of Jewish- and Gentile-Christians, but only 
to an exclusively Jewish-Christian circle of readers. Not even the slightest 
reference is made to conditions such as must of necessity arise from the 
living together of converted Jews with converted Gentiles, and which, by 
reason of the manifold conflicts to which they would give occasion, were 
of too great importance to be passed over unnoticed.!. Nowhere is the rela- 


1 For this reason it cannot be asserted, with 
Holtzmann (Stud. u. Krit. 1859, H. 2, p. 298), 
that there is nothing at all centradictory in 
the supposition of the epistle being addressed 
to a large congregation, still outwardly com- 


posed of Gentile- and Jewish-Christians; 


that there the epistle had naturally sought 
out its Jewish readers; and on that account 
it leads us, without any address properly 
speaking, in mediam rem. That the epistle 


presupposes exclusively Jewish-Christian 


readers has been ar°” disputed by Wieseler 


INTRODUCTION. 369 


tion of the Gentiles to the Jews, and of both to the kingdom of God, spoken 
of; rather is everything specially referred to the Jewish people of God, 
already sanctified in their fathers. Unmixed Jewish-Christian congrega- 
tions, however, cannot be historically proved, in the late time at which 
the date of the epistle falls (see sec. 4), in any of the fore-mentioned 
places. The fact, likewise, is opposed to those suppositions, that the 
readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews regarded the continued participation 
in the institutions of the Jewish temple-service and sacrifices as so necessary, 
that without this they thought they could obtain no complete expiation 
of their sins. Such a form of Judaism, still continuing to operate in the 
Christian state, does not apply to the Jewish-Christians of the diaspora, 
but only to those who had their dwelling-place in the immediate vicinity 
of the Jewish temple. For in the case of Jews who lived at a greater dis- 
tance from the temple, the zeal for the Mosaic law manifested itself 
naturally most of all in a tenacious clinging to the rite of circumcision, 
to the injunctions regarding food and purification, to the observance of 
the Sabbath, and the like. 

A Jewish temple, however, besides that at Jerusalem, existed at the 
time of our epistle only in Egypt. The epistle can therefore only have 
been addressed either to the Christian congregation in Palestine, mainly 
in Jerusalem, or to Egyptian, specially Alexandrian, Jewish-Christians. 
The latter supposition has found defenders in J. E. Chr. Schmidt (Hist.- 
krit. Einl. in’s N. T., Giessen 1804, p. 284, 293), Bunsen (Hippolytus und 
seine Zeit, Bd. I., Leipz. 1852, p. 365), Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. 
Theol. 1858, H.1, p. 103; Hist.-krit. Hinl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875, p. 885 
f.), Volkmar (Gesch. des Neutest. Kanon, von C. A. Credner, Herausgg. v. 
G. V., Berl. 1860, p. 182), Ritschl (Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1866, H.1, p. 
90), and in particular Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters, Gott. 
1848, p. 481 ff.; Untersuchung uber den Hebraerbrief, namentlich seinen Ver- 
Jasser u. 8. Leser. Second half. [Schriften der Universitat zu Kiel aus d. J. 
1861, 4, B. VIII.; also separately printed, Kiel 1861, 8.] Comp. also 
Studien u. Kritiken, 1847, H. 4, p. 840 ff.; 1867, H. 4, p. 665 ff), and R. 
Kostlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 3, p. 388 ff.) ; Davidson, 
too (Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p 
265 ff., 270), although he does not decide, gives it the preference. The 


(Schriften der Univers. zu Kiel aus d. J. 1861, p. NV. T. p. 380, 386), but in a by no means con- 
21 ff., Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 695 ff.), by Holtz- vincing manner. See the detailed and 
mann (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. effective refutation of this supposition in 
1867, p. 26 f.), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Hinl. in Grimm (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p 
d. NV. T. p. 612), and by Hilgenfeld (Hindi. in d. 34 ff). 

24 


370 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS: 


prevailing opinion, on the other hand, is the first one. Within recent times 
it has been maintained by Bleek, Schott, de Wette, Thiersch, Stengel, 
Delitzsch, Tholuck, Ebrard,! Bisping, Bloomfield, Ritschl (Hntstehung der 
altkathol. Kirche, 2 Aufi., Bonn 1857, p. 159), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebr.- 
Br. I. p. 81), Maier, Langen (Tiibing. theol. Quartalschr. 1863, H. 3, p. 3879 
ff.), Moll, and others? And rightly so. 

In favor of Alexandria as the place of destination for the epistle, the 
following arguments have been advanced :— 

(1) Even in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews bore likewise the 
title of a letter to the Alexandrians, and in general there is seen to be 
a wavering within the early church itself in the indication of the original 
circle of readers. Whether, indeed, the superscription Ilpé¢ 'EBpaioug pro- 
ceeds from the author himself, a view to which Bleek and Credner are 
inclined, is doubtful. But not only is this superscription very ancient, 
since it is found in the Peshito, and with Tertullian, Origen, and many 
others; but the fact, moreover, is universally presupposed in Christian 
antiquity as beyond doubt that the ‘ESpaio., whose name the epistle bears 
The evidence for this state- 
ment is afforded by Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Chrys- 


at its head, were the Palestinian Christians. 
ostom, Theodoret, and many others. It is now indeed supposed that we 
possess a testimony in favor of the Alexandrians as the original recipients 
of the epistle, namely, in the so-called Canon of Muratori, in which we 
read: Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses (Laodicenses), alia ad Alexandrinos, 
Pauli nomine finctae (fictae) ad haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura, quae 
Fel enim 
For that by the words alia ad Aleran- 
drinos the Epistle to the Hebrews is meant must be assumed, as is sup- 


in catholicam ecclesiam recepi (recipi) non potest (possunt). 
cum melle misceri non congruit. 


posed, since otherwise the Epistle to the Hebrews would, remarkably 
enough, not be even mentioned in the fragment, which, forsooth, is a list 
both of the genuine and spurious epistles ascribed to the Apostle Paul. 
Now this epistle, it is argued, not being in the early Roman Church, either 


}Very arbitrarily, nevertheless, Ebrard in a community;” nor, finally, from xpeiav 


represents the epistle as not being written to 
the whore congregation at Jerusalem, but 
only to “a private circle of neophytes” there. 
For it neither follows from y. 12 “ that all the 
readers had embraced Christianity at one 
and the same time, the one with the other;” 
nor from vi. 10 that we can think “only of a 
very narrow and limited circle of individuals 


éxeTe Tod SidaoKer Vuas, V. 12, “that the readers 
were really again placed under instruction.” 

2W. Grimm also supposes now that the 
epistle was addressed to a town of Palestine; 
only not Jerusalem, but Jamnia. Comp, 
Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 71 f. Never. 
theless we know nothing of the existence of 


a Christian congregation in Jamnia. 


INTRODUCTION. 371 


regarded as a work of Paul, or indeed as canonical, must have been men- 
tioned by name precisely in this passage, in which the writer is speaking 
of epistles of which the authorship is falsely imputed to the Apostle Paul. 
But against this it must be said that the characteristics of the epistle ad 
Alexandrinos, of which the fragment makes mention, are not suitable to 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the former was a forgery, composed 
“ Pauli nomine,” the meaning of which is too distinct for us to be able, 
with Wieseler, to subtilize it into the statement that the epistle had only 
indirectly, from its contents and general bearing, left the impression of its 
proceeding from Paul; which rather can only indicate that this epistle, in 
a prefixed address altogether wanting to the Epistle to the Hebrews ae 
forth the claim to be a work of Paul. it was fabricated “ad 
haeresem Marcionis,” which can mean nothing else but that its con- 


Moreover, 


tents were in agreement with the errors of Marcion, and were designed to 
wage a propaganda for the same. With Marcionite errors, however, the 
Epistle to the Hebrews has confessedly nothing in common; but, on the 
contrary, “its fundamental doctrine of Mosaism as pointing forward to 
Christianity, as well as the idea of the incar nation of the Divine Logos, is 
in glaring contrast with Marcion’s Gnosis” (Grimm, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 
1870, p. 55), as accordingly it obtained no reception into Marcion’s canon." 
That, finally, the fragmentist must necessarily have mentioned the Epistle 
to the Hebrews cannot be asserted, inasmuch as, considering the non- 
currency thereof within the early Roman Church, it was quite possible 
that he should not be at all acquainted with it. Comp.also Fr. H. Hesse, 
das Muratori’sche Fragment neu untersucht und erklart, Giessen 1873, p. 201 
ff—But as it cannot be shown that the Epistle to the Hebrews passed in 
antiquity for an epistle to the Alexandrians, so in like manner it cannot 
be shown that this epistle was regarded by others in early times as an 
epistle to the Laodiceans. This last has been inferred from the words of 
Philastrius (Haeres. 89): Haeresis quorundam de epistola Pauli ad Heb- 


raeos. Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non adserunt 


1This counter-moment Wieseler now, in- 
deed, seeks to deprive of its force, by giving 
to the words in Muratori’s fragment another 
punctuation than that given above, as also 
formerly by himself, in supposing the comma 
after Marcionis is to be deleted, and one 
placed after fictae ; so that the sense shall be: 
“There is also in circulation an epistle to the 
Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, 


which have been fabricated under the name 
of Paul; 


also several other things current, which, ete.” 


with the sect of Marcion there are 


But what unnatural twisting and rending by 
such construction of that which is simply 
and naturally connected; and how little can 
it serve to the recommendation thereof, that 
ad haeresem Marcionis must be taken in the 


sense of apud Marcionitas! 


Sis THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe 
Roma episcopi. Alii autem Lucae evangelistae ajunt epistolam etiam ad 
Laodicenses conscriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non bene 
sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; etsi legitur a quibusdam, non 
tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolae ejus et ad Heb- 
raeos interdum. But manifestly the words Ali autem, etc., are only a 
concise expression for the declaration that others looked upon the evan- 
gelist Luke as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and not only as 
the author of this, but also of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. The Epistie 
to the Laodiceans was not at all read in the service of the church; the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, was read indeed in the service 
of the church, not, however, as the thirteen Pauline Epistles, regularly, 
but only occasionally. Just as little, finally, is there any indication of a 
controversy with regard to the original recipients of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, when Chrysostom, in the Prooemium of his commentary, takes 
up the question: tov 62 obow éxéoreAdev; and then answers this with é joi 
Sokei év Iepoooabuorg kat Tadaorivy. For Chrysostom perceived that the 
superscription of the epistle was in and of itself an ambiguous one, inas- 
much as it admitted the possibility of thinking of the Jewish-Christians 
in general as the recipients of the letter; he thought it needful, therefore, 
to state the limitation with which in his estimation the IIpd¢ ‘E8paiove, of 
such wide signification, is to be understood. 

(2) The description of the Jewish sanctuary (ix. 1-5), as well as the acts 
of ritual performed in the same (vii. 27, x. 11), is supposed to point to the 


* 


1 The opinion, still entertained by Wieseler, 
that the quia addiderunt in ea is to be referred 
to tlie Epistle to fhe Hebrews, is manifestly 
untenable in face of the contradiction in that 

_ ease arising from the conflicting statements 
non legitur in ecclesia and in ecclesia legitur 
interdum. The new punctuation, moreover, 

by which Wieseler seeks to help his accepta- 
tion of the words of Philastrius out of the 
difficulty, is no happy one. According to 

Wieseler, namely, we have to divide as fol- 

lows: ... Episcopi, alii autem Lucae evan- 
gelistae. Ajunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicen- 
ses conscriptam. Et quia, ete. Against this 
arrangement of the words argues—(1) That 
the proposition Ajunt . . . conscriptam would 
then stand forth quite abrupt and without 


any connection, whereas when we make the 


beginning of a new proposition with Alit 
autem, the grammatical nexus of the sentence 
is an- entirely simple and natural one; (2) 
That if Philastrius had wished first to begin 
a new proposition with Ajunt, he would have 
appended the closing member of the previous 
sentence, not in the form: alii autem Lucae 
evangelistae, but in the form of expression 
corresponding to that which precedes: aut 
Tnucae evangelistae ; finally, (3) that the position 
assigned to etiam points to the fact that it 
serves specially to bring into relief ad Lao- 
dicenses, and consequently opposes the Epistle 
to the Laodiceans to another epistle already 
mentioned, If Philastrius had only intended 
to say that the Epistle to the Hebrews too, 
so far as its destination is concerned, was 
considered as belonging to Laodicea, then 


INTRODUCTION. oie 


temple at Leontopolis in Egypt. But even if it could be proved that the 
temple arrangements at Leontopolis furnished the standard for that 
description, and that the original regulations of Moses were identified with 
these, yet only the conclusion would be warranted with respect to the author, 
that he must have been by birth an Egyptian Jew, but it could not be 
inferred with equal necessity that his readers also were to be sought in 
Egypt. Nevertheless, that assertion itself by no means admits of proof. 
For Josephus—to whose testimony Wieseler appeals,—where he is describ- 
ing in general that iepév at Leontopolis, designates the same as épovov (Antiq. 
xii. 9. 7), or as taparAgovov (Antig. Xx. 10) 76 év ‘Tepoooatporc, but then ob- 
serves, Bell. Jud. vii. 10, 3, where he is relating somewhat more exactly, as 
follows: ’Oviac tov wév vadv ody buoLovy YKodduyoe TO év ‘IepoooAbuou ada 
Tipyo TaparAjovoy, Aiduv peyddwy etc éEjxovTa THEW aveotHKéTa, TOW Bwpov 
dé THY KaTaGKEVHY TPO TOV OLKOL éFeulpugoato kal toig avabjpaciy 
dpoiwe Exdounce, ywpi¢ THO TEpl THY Avyviav Katackevgc. Ov 
yap éroince Avyviay avrov dé yarxevodpuevoc Tov Abyvov yYpvooiv éripai- 
vovra ckhac ypvoyc dAboews éexpéuacev. Josephus accordingly relates that 
the temple of Onias in Egypt was indeed as to its outward form different 
from the temple at Jerusalem, inasmuch as it stood upon a foundation or 
sub-structure! of great stones rising sixty cubits high, and_ thereby 
acquired a tower-like appearance ; that, on the other hand, its inner 
arrangement, with the single exception of the golden candlestick, was 
constituted in the same manner as that of the temple at J erusalem, for 
the altar of burnt-offering and the other sacred objects were similar in 
both. Now, how does it follow from these statements that the golden altar 
of incense in the Egyptian temple occupied the very site which the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews assigns to it at ix. 4, in contradiction with the 


etiam—inasmuch as it would in that case translating déAAa as “but yet,” and accord- 


belong to the whole proposition—must have 
been placed immediately after Ajunt. 

1Tf Josephus had, as Wieseler supposes, 
ascribed to the vads only a total height of 
sixty cubits, he would neither have character- 
ized it as tower-like, nor have designated it 
as unlike the vaés in Jerusalem. For the 
jatter also had, at any rate, a height of sixty 
eubits. It is true Wieseler finds actually ex- 
pressed by adda mvpyw mapatAnc.ovy not a 
dissimilarity, but a resemblance to the temple 
erected at Jerusalem by Zerubbabel; but he 
reaches this result only by unwarrantably 


ingly taking aAAa . . . aveoTynKOTa aS a kind 
of parenthetical insertion: “Onias erected 
the temple not indeed equal to that one in 
Jerusalem, but yet tower-like, since it was 
built up of large stones sixty cubits high; in 
the construction of the altar, however, he 
imitated that of his native land.” That adda, 
on account of the preceding ovx, can signify 
only but, on the contrary [sondern], and in- 
troduces the particular point of difference by 
which the before-mentioned dissimilarity 1s 
evidenced, ought not to have been called in 


question. 


374 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


actual position thereof in the temple at Jerusalem, namely, in the Most 
Holy Place? of such a difference—and surely just this point would have 
called for proof—Josephus says in truth nota single word, but, on the 
contrary, leaves the opposite impression. And then how could the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, if he had had the temple of Onias before 
him in his description of the sanctuary, have written év 7 7 Avyvia, ix. 2, 
when, according to the express statement of Josephus, there was not 
therein a lamp-stand resting on the ground, as in the temple at Jerusa- 
lem, but a chandelier suspended by a golden chain?—In Philo, too, 
Wieseler has subsequently (comp. Studien u. Kritiken, 1867, p. 673 ff.) 
fancied he could discover a support for his opinion. In de sacrificantibus, 
2 4 (ed. Mangey, II. p. 253), and de animal. sacrific. 310 (ed. Mangey, II. 
p. 247), it is thought that Philo expressly testifies that in the temple of 
Onias the altar of incense, as well as the vessels mentioned Heb. ix. 4, 5, 
were present in the Most Holy Place. Yet how entirely unsuccessful this 
attempted proof of Wieseler’sis, has been already convincingly shown in 
detail by Grimm, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 60 ff—But just as little do 
the notices, Heb. vii. 27, x. 11, lead to think of the temple of Onias. For 
even supposing—what is far, however, from being the case—that it could 
be historically proved, with regard to the Egyptian temple, that the high 
priest entered into the Most Holy Place every day, yet such fact would 
not so much as accord with the presuppositions of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. For, Heb. ix. 7, it is expressly said that the high priest went 
into the Most Holy Place only once in the year. Nor, as we need hardly 
remark, can this passage, in connection with ix. 4, vii. 27, x. 11, contain 
the sense which Wieseler would put into it, that the high priest entered 
indeed the Most Holy Place every day, but only once in ‘the year with 
blood. For to eic Hév THY. KpOTHY oKyvav dia TavrTo¢ eiciaow oi lepsic Only the 
words etc dé tiv devtépav drat tov iriavtov pdvoc 6 apyepebe form the oppo- 
sition, and not until after the laying down of this opposition is the nearer 
modality for the final member added, namely, that the high priest, in the 
(special) case of his entering the Most Holy Place, enters it not without 
blood. 

The fact, however, in general, that the original recipients of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews attached so high a value to the temple service and the 
sacrificial ritual, that even as Christians they regarded continual partici- 
pation in the same as necessary for the attaining of salvation, is one 
which points not to Alexandrians, but only to Palestinians. For, quite 
apart from the consideration that we do not even know from other sources 


INTRODUCTION. 375 


whether the Christian congregation of Alexandria was an unmixed 
Jewish-Christian one, nay, whether an organized Christian congregation 
existed there at all so early as the time of our letter, the Alexandrian 
Jews had been so greatly affected by Grecian culture and philosophy, that 
their whole bent of mind had become a spiritualistic one. Far from all 
narrow-minded cleaving to the letter of the Mosaic law, they sought by 
allegoric interpretation to discover and bring into recognition the deeper 
spiritual sense underlying the precepts and institutions of Judaism. In 
addition to this, the temple of Onias in Leontopolis was not able to boast 
even in Egypt itself of any high estimation. The Egyptian Jews were to 
a great extent displeased that it did not stand upon Moriah ; the Egyptian 
Samaritans, that it did not stand upon Gerizim (comp. Jost, Allg. Gesch. 
des Israel. Volks, in 2 vols., Bd. I. p. 515 ff.). The yearly temple-gifts, too, 
were on that account for the most part sent not to Leontopolis, but to 
Jerusalem (comp. Frankel, Histor.-krit. Studien zu der Septuaginta, Bd. I. 
Abth. 1, Leipz. 1841, p, 186, note d) ; and pilgrimages of Alexandrian Jews 
to Jerusalem, to offer prayers and sacrifices in the temple there, did not 
cease so long as this temple continued to exist. Even Philo vouches for 
this. (Comp. Opp., ed. Mangey, t. I. p. 646: xa?’ dv ypdvov cic TO TaTpwov 
igpov éoreAAdunv evEduevog TE Kal iow.) 

(3) In favor of the supposition of Alexandrian readers is the fact further 
thought to plead, that the epistle is not composed in Aramaic; a Greek 
epistle to Palestinian Jews would at any rate, it is argued, be less probable 
than an Aramaic letter. But as it is absolutely certain, on the one hand, 
that the Palestinians understood not only Aramaic, but also Greek ; so, 
on the other hand, it is altogether doubtful whether the author, who by 
his whole epistle proclaims himself to be a non-Palestinian, was in an 
equal degree qualified for writing not only a Greek, but also an Aramaic 
epistle. 

(4) “The whole manner of conducting the argument and the spiritual 
exposition of the ideas employed,” is said to accord best with the supposi- 
tion of Alexandrian readers. But that this mode of argumentation is 
thought of “at once as familiar to the readers,” cannot be maintained. 
There can thus be found therein only an indication as to the author, and 
not as to his readers. 

(5) That the author so exactly follows the Septuagint in his Old Testa- 
ment citations, even in the case of striking deviations of the same from 
the original text, is said not to harmonize with the hypothesis of Pales- 


tinian readers, since with them the Septuagint was held in no estimation ; 


376 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


but certainly with that of Alexandrians, for whom the Septuagint had 
long been the accepted book of the synagogues. But were that transla- 
tion really in so little credit in Palestine, then neither would the Apostle 
Paul, educated as he was at Jerusalem, have made such frequent use of it, 
nor would the Palestinian Josephus have fallen back upon that oftener 
than upon the original text. Moreover, the fact that the Alexandrine 
recension is to be traced in the text of the Septuagint used in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews (comp. Bleek, I. p. 372 ff.), and (Heb. xi. 35 f.) reference is 
made to the second Book of Maccabees (KGstlin, /. c. p. 402), 7. e. a writing 
peculiar to Alexandrian Judaism, admits only of an inference pointing 
back to an Alexandrian author, but not to Alexandrian readers. 

(6) To the Alexandrians as original recipients of the epistle, is the 
circumstance, finally, supposed to point, that the first mention of the 
epistle is met with in the Alexandrian fathers. These same Alexandrian 
fathers, nevertheless, confessedly agree in speaking of the epistle as 
addressed to the congregations in Palestine. 

As, however, no valid ground is to be adduced in favor of Alexandria 
as the place of destination for the epistle, so are the objections urged 
against the claim of Palestine very easily disposed of. They are the 
following :—(1) That the readers, according to Heb. x. 32 ff., xii. 4, had 
already endured persecutions, but not peypi aivatoc, which consistently 
with Acts vili. 1-3, xii. 1, 2, could not have been said of the Palestinian 
Christians; (2) That the readers, according to Heb. vi. 10, xiii. 16, had 
exercised liberality towards other Christians, and were still further enjoined 
to do so, whereas, according to Acts xi. 30, Gal. ii. 10,1 Cor. xvi. 1-3, 
2 Cor. viii. 9, Rom. xv. 25 ff., these very Palestinian Christians appear as 
3 poor and in need of assistance; (3) That according to Heb. ii. 3 they had 
received their knowledge of the gospel only from a secondary source; (4) 
Finally, that (xiii. 18, 19, 23) they are represented as standing in friendly 
relations as well towards the author, who was surely an adherent of Paul, 
as towards the Pauline disciple Timothy. That, nevertheless, these 
relations were of a particularly close and intimate nature does not - 
follow from the passages adduced ; a friendly footing, however, of a more 
general kind with Apollos, and, after the death of the Apostle Paul, also 
with Timothy, has nothing surprising about it. The other statements to 
which allusion is made all find their justification in the fact that, as is also” 
clearly apparent from xiii. 7 and y. 12, the recipients of the letter already 
belonged to a second generation of Christians. 


Whilst the above-mentioned arguments are common to the majority of 


INTRODUCTION. 377 


those who dispute the Palestineo-Jerusalemic destination of the epistle, 
Kostlin has sought to confirm his position by the following additionai 
counter-moments peculiar to himself :— 

(1) The author, as is shown by his entire dependence upon the Septua- 
gint, was acquainted only with Greek. But it results from xiii. 19 that he 
himself belonged to the congregation to which he is writing. If, there- 
fore, the epistle were directed to Palestine, the author himself would have 
been a Palestinian Christian; as such, however, hardly of so exclusively 
Hellenistic culture, but without doubt familiar with the vernacular of 
Palestine, and notably acquainted with the original text of the Old Testa- 
ment. Reply: But that the author himself was a member of the congre- 
gation to which he is writing, does not at all follow from xiii. 19. Comp. 
the exposition of the passage. 

(2) It cannot be assumed that in the Palestinian Christendom, or rather 
in the chief congregation thereof, that of Jerusalem, in the first century, 
and notably in the years 60-70, there could have been found such great 
indifference as regards the knowledge of the central truths of the Christian 
faith, so great want of capacity for understanding the mysteries of the 
Christian doctrine, such culpable lukewarmness and weakness of faith, a 
discontent on account of Jewish reproaches and persecutions, which was 
altogether unworthy of their position, while they must long have been 
accustomed to these, and such a disloyal inclination to a relapse into 
Judaism, as the epistle presupposes in its recipients. But where, we ask. 
could there have been a Jewish-Christian congregation in connection with 
which the conditions described would have been more easily explicable, 
than precisely in Jerusalem, where the ancient ritual, with its seductive 
splendor and its charms for the sensuous nature, stood before the very 
eyes of the Christian converts, and the tenacious power of resistance on 
the part of the ancient Judaism most vigorously exerted itself? Comp. 
also Acts xxi. 20 ff. 

(8) If Jerusalem had been the place of destination for the epistle, the 
author (ii. 8) could not have omitted to remind the readers that the Lord 
Himself had walked, and taught, and wrought among them, had in their 
midst, nay, before their eyes, suffered the death of the cross, among them 
had found the first witnesses of His resurrection and ascension ; and the 
more so, since during the years 60-70 there must still have been a large 
number of the immediate disciples of Jesus present in Jerusalem. But, 
in reply, we cannot at all expect to see the personal life and labors of 
Jesus described ii. 8, because the connection does not lead thereto. Fo1 


378 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


that which is essential in ii. 3 is not the relation to author and readers of 
the epistle, but that about which the writer is concerned is only to oppose 
to the Old Testament Adyoc, as something higher, the salvation of the 
Christians. The question thus, in connection with this opposition, is that 
of the Christians in general, or of the salvation which is the common 
possession of all Christians ; while, then, only as a mere secondary consid- 
eration, which might have been wanting without prejudice to the connect- 
edness of thought, the remark is yet further added, that the knowledge 
of this Christian blessedness has been transmitted in a sure and trust- 
worthy manner to the present (second) generation of Christians, to which 
alike author and readers of the epistle belong. An occasion for speaking 
more fully of the erewhile personal activity of Jesus among the readers 
did not accordingly at all present itself; and a reason for urging the 
declaration ii. 3 against the supposition of Palestinenses as recipients of 
the epistle is the less to be thought of, inasmuch as the fact that the Lord 
had once Himself proclaimed the salvation to the ancestors of the present 
church members is not excluded by the words. But that a great number 
of the original disciples must have been still living in Jerusalem during 
the years 60-70 is a gratuitous assertion, to which may be opposed the 
consideration that surely Luke too, in the prologue of his Gospel—i. e. 
of a writing, the composition of which at any rate falls within the decade 
of the seventies, which thus is only a few years later in date than our 
epistle—without hesitation reckons himself and his contemporaries as 
5elonging to a second generation of Christians. Even supposing, however, 
that immediate disciples of Jesus were still to be found in Jerusalem, yet 
these could number towards the close of the sixties, to which time the 
origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to be assigned (comp. sec. 4), only - 
a few solitary individuals; a possible exception here and there would 
have been no hindrance in the way of characterizing the members of the 
congregation of that day as belonging to a second generation of Christians, 
just because only the character of the congregation in general, or as it 
presented itself in the main and on the whole, was being taken into 
account. 

(4) The author presupposes, in various passages, what does not apply to 
the case of the primitive congregation, that his readers have been for only 
a comparatively short time members of the Christian church. But from 
ili. 14, vi. 11, x. 32, vi. 1-5, x. 28, this conclusion does not follow; on the 
other hand, the opposite is to be inferred from v. 12. 


(5) The Jerusalemic Christians, he asserts, consisted partly of members 


INTRODUCTION. 379 


who became believers immediately after the resurrection,—some of them, 
perhaps, even earlier,—partly of such as only later acceded to this primi- 
tive stock. They composed a congregation which was only gradually 
formed, and, particularly so long as James was alive, received constant 
augmentation from the adherents of Judaism; the community of the 
‘EBpaioe had not arisen in this gradual manner during a long succession of 
years; but the conversion of all its members, or at least of by far the 
greater number, had taken place at one and the same time: it must have 
been formed by the simultaneous passing over of a considerable number 
of Jews to the Christian church, and have maintained itself up to the 
time of our epistle with much the same total of members as it at first 
counted. But fora conclusion of this kind the words év alc gwriobévte¢ 
ToAdyy GAnow breueivate Tafnudatwv, X. 32, afford no warrant. For only the 
fact is there brought into prominence, that the conflict of suffering, which 
the readers formerly endured, fell at a period of their life in which they 
were already Christians. On the peculiar circumstances (modality) of 
their conversion the words contain nothing. 

(6) From the carefully-chosen designation roi¢ ayiovc, it is evident 
that the ‘ESpaio are here presupposed to be a non-Palestinian community, 
who have aided the Palestinenses with their support. Any other. congre- 
gation (!) than the primitive one could not have been thus simply desig- 
nated as oi dyrot, whereas the employment of this name with regard to 
that congregation is very frequent (1 Cor. xvi.1; 2 Cor. viii. 4,ix.1; Rom. 
xv. 20,31). A usage to be accounted for by the fact that, as distinguished 
from all the other éxxAyoia:, the Palestinian, and specially the Jerusalemic 
Christians, were the dy: kar’ éox#v, who before all others, chosen and 
separated from the world by Christ and His apostles themselves, became 
the first recipients of the divine word and of the Holy Spirit, were the 
first witnesses and intermediate channels of Christian truth for all other 
Christian communities, and were also, as such, acknowledged (specially 
Rom. xy. 27), until, owing to the destruction of Jerusalem and the rending 
progress of Gentile Christianity, this relation of dependence and filial 
affection was gradually dissolved of itself—In order, however, to show the 
mistake in such reasoning, it suffices to point to the use of of dyw: in 
passages like 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2, xvi. 15; Rom. xii. 13, xvi. 2; 1 Tim. v. 10; to 
the addresses of the Pauline epistles; to the addition rév év ‘Iepovoaryu, 
considered necessary in connection with rév dyiwy, Rom. xv. 26; and 
many similar instances. (1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, on the other 
hand, there was no need of such addition,—against Kurtz,—because the 


380 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


collection which is the subject treated of in those passages was a business 
already known to the Corinthians, and before earnestly enjoined upon 
them: while, Rom. xy. 25, it was already apparent from vuvi dé ropebvouat 
ei¢ ‘Iepovoaagu, and, Rom. xv. 31, from 7 ei¢ ‘IepovoaAjp, of What ays the 
apostle was speaking.) Yea, Késtlin has even overlooked the considera- 
tion, that by means of this argument, if it were well-grounded, he would 
most effectually refute himself! For what further proof, that the 
readers of the letter are to be sought in Jerusalem, would it then need 
than the utterance of our epistle itself, xiii. 24: aoxdoaobe mavtag tov¢ qyov- 
pévoug tudv Kai Tavtag TovE adyiouvg? 

(7) That the Jerusalemic congregation remained, as is clear from Acts 
ii. 46, iii. 1 (comp. xxi. 20), from the first in connection with the temple 
ritual. By the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other 
hand, all religious connection with Judaism was originally relinquished, 
and only now had they become involved in peril, as: well through the 
influence of teachings which would urge the necessity of holding firmly 
to the Mosaic law (xiii. 9 ff.), as also, as it seems, through the influence of 
enticing offers (comp. xii. 16 f.), partly also by harassing manifestations of 
ill-will on the part of their former Jewish fellow-believers, of being seduced 
into a return to the Jewish religious constitution. But the actual state of 
matters is by this assertion inverted into its exact opposite. For that the 
recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews not only still continued to occupy 
themselves with the Jewish temple-service and sacrificial ritual, but even 
regarded participation therein as a necessary requirement for the com- 
Plete expiation of sins, certainly underlies the whole argumentation of 
the epistle as an everywhere-recurring presupposition. 


SEC. 3.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS. 


The Epistle to the Hebrews was occasioned by the danger-to which the 
Christians in Palestine, particularly in Jerusalem, were exposed, of re- 
nouncing again their faith in Christ, and wholly falling back again into 
Judaism (comp. specially vi. 4-6, x. 26 ff). This danger had become a 
very pressing one, inasmuch as many had already as a matter of fact 
ceased to frequent the Christian assemblies (x. 25). The epistle accord- 
ingly aims, by the unfolding on every side of the sublimity of the Chris- 
tian revelation as the perfect and archetypal, above that of the Old Testa- 
ment as the merely preparatory and typical, as well as by setting forth the 
terrible consequences of an apostasy, to warn against such falling away, 
and to animate to a faithful perseverance in the Christian course.—Differ- 


INTRODUCTION. 381 


ently, but quite incorrectly, does Thiersch (De epistola ad Hebr., Marb. 
1848, p. 2 sqq. ; Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitulter, Frankf. and Erlang. 
1852, p. 188 ff.) define the object of the epistle, to the effect that it was to 
be a consolatory letter to the Christians of Jerusalem, on account of the 
exclusion from the Jewish temple with which they had been visited on 
the part of their unconverted compatriots at the outbreak of the Jewish 
war. Nothing in the epistle points to any such state of the matter; but, 
on the contrary, even the one passage, Heb. xiii. 13, serves to place in a 
clear light the erroneousness of this conjecture. For, instead of men- 
tioning a state of exclusion, and bestowing a word of consolation upon the 
occasion of an event like that, the author here assuredly summons to a 
coming forth out of Judaism as a voluntary act, and thus, as in his other 
reasoning, presupposes that the readers were still in the midst of Judaism, 
and adhered thereto with narrow-minded and unchristian stubbornness. 
A special support for his hypothesis Thiersch fancies is to be found in the 
eleventh chapter. All the historic instances there adduced are, he tells 
us, chosen by the author with a special bearing upon such a position of 
the readers as is assumed by him. But a glance at the paraphrase of the 
eleventh chapter, which Thiersch affords in proof of this assertion, shows 
that everything from which he derives his argument has first been im- 
ported by himself into the text.—That, finally, also Ebrard’s view—accord- 
ing to which the epistle was designed to be “a kind of manual (Leit- 
Jaden)” (!) for Jerusalem “ neophytes” (!), who, “out of dread of exclu- 
sion from the temple cultus,” seemed about to withdraw again from 
Christianity '—is an extremely arbitrary one, needs hardly a word of 
further demonstration. 

As regards its contents, the epistle is ordinarily divided into two parts,— 
a dogmatic (i. 1-x. 18) and a paraenetic (x. 19-xiii. 25). But a rigid separa- 
tion does not exist, inasmuch as exhortations, some of them of considerable 
extent, are already often incorporated in that first part, and the main 


tendency of the whole letter is a paraenetic (hortatory) one. 


1“ Hostility of the other Jews,” and “ appre- 
hension of being excluded from the temple 
cult,” is also assumed by y. Déllinger (Christ- 
entrum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, 
Regensb. 1860, p. 84) as the cause of the 
tendency to apostasy; while Kluge (der He- 
brderbrief. Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu- 
Ruppin 1863, p. 203 ff.) discovers in the letter 
a product of the Jewish apocalyptics (? !) 
transplanted upon Christian soil, which as 


such has arisen only after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and received its outward occasion 
from the final catastrophe of the Jewish 
people. Deriving its theme from Rom. xi. 
32, it is supposed to pursue the soterio-paeda- 
gogic object of an exhortation to repentance 
for the chosen people, and of a warning te 
the Jewish-Christian readers descended from 
Israel against apostasy from their living 
hopes. 


382 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


The contents themselves run as follows:—The revelation of God in 
Christ is superior to His revelations under the Old Covenant. For Christ, 
as the Son of God, is exalted above the angels, as mere servants (chap. i.). 
So much the more are we called to hold firmly to the Christian faith. 
For if even the Mosaic law, given through the ministry of angels, could 
not be transgressed with impunity, the culpability of slighting the Chris- 
tian salvation, proclaimed by the Lord and attested by God Himself, is 
incomparably greater (11. 1-4). Not to angels, but to Christ, the Son of 
man, is the Messianic kingdom made subject. Certainly Christ was for a 
little time abased beneath the angels; but thus it must be, in order 
that mankind might obtain salvation: He must suffer and die, and 
in all things become like unto men, His brethren, in order to be 
able, as High Priest, to reconcile them to God (vv. 5-18). Therefore 
consider well Jesus, the Envoy and High Priest of our confession! He 
is more exalted than Moses; so much higher does He stand than Moses, 
as the son, who is lord over the house, has precedence over the servant 
of the house (ili. 1-6). Take heed, therefore, in accordance with the 
admonition of the Holy Ghost, of unbelief and apostasy; since the fate 
of the fathers, who because of their disobedience became the prey of de- 
struction, serves to you as a warning. The promise of God of an enter- 
ing into His rest is still unfulfilled; to you, also, the entrance is open, if 
you have faith, whereas rebelliousness against the admonition which is 
addressed anew unto you delivers you over to the vindicatory righteous- 
ness of God (iv. 1-13). The readers ought to hold fast to the Christian - 
contession, since they possess in Jesus a High Priest who is not only 
highly exalted, but also is qualified to redeem mankind (vv. 14-16). The 
two main essential qualifications which every human high priest must 
possess,—namely, the capacity for having sympathy with erring humanity, 
and the being no usurper of the office, but one called of God to the same, 
—Christ also possesses. He is a High Priest after the manner of Mel- 
chisedec (v. 1-10). But before the author passes over, as is his purpose, 
to the more detailed presentation of the high-priestly dignity belonging to 
Christ after the manner of Melchisedec, and thus to His exalted rank 
above the Levitical high priests, he complains, in a digression, of the low 
stage of Christian knowledge at which the readers, who ought themselves 
long ago to have been teachers of Christianity, still remain. He exhorts 
them to strive after full manhood and maturity in the Christian life, and, 
in a note of warning, reminds them that those who have already experi- 
enced, in its influence upon them, the fullness of blessing which pertains 


INTRODUCTION. 383 


to Christianity, and nevertheless apostatize from the faith, by their own 
fault let slip beyond recovery the Christian blessedness; then, however, 
expresses the confidence he feels that it will not be so with the readers, 
who have distinguished themselves, and do still distinguish themselves by 
works of Christian love, and indicates what he desires of them, namely, 
perseverance to the end; while at the same time he directs their attention 
to the inviolability of the divine promise and the objective certainty of the 
Christian hope (v. 1l-vi. 20). With the seventh chapter the author 
returns to the subject under discussion. He dwells first upon the person 
of Melchisedec himself, following up the hints of Scripture as he presents 
to his readers the exalted position of Melchisedec, and shows a threefold 
superiority of the same over the Levitical priests (vil. 1-10). From this 
relation of inferiority, however, it follows now that the Levitical priest- 
hood, and thus consequently the Mosaic law in general, is imperfect and 
incapable of leading on to perfection. For otherwise there would have 
been no need, after the law had long been instituted, of the promise and 
the appearing of another priest of other descent (vv. 11,12). That the 
Levitical priesthood, together with the Mosaic law, has lost its validity, is 
evident from the circumstance that Christ, to whom that divine utter- 
ance Ps. cx. 4 has reference, belongs as a matter of fact to a tribe which, 
according to Mosaic ordinance, has no part in the administration of the 
priestly office (vv. 18, 14); it is further evident from the consideration 
that the new priest who is promised is to bear a resembiance to Mel- 
chisedec, in which is implied just the particular, that his characteristic 
peculiarity is other than that of the Levitical priests (vv. 15-17). The 
end, to the bringing in of which the Levitical priesthood was wanting in 
power, is attained by Christ’s everlasting priesthood after the manner of 
Melchisedec (vv. 18, 19). The preeminence of this over the Levitical 
priesthood appears further from the fact that it was constituted by God 
by virtue of an oath, whereas the former was constituted without an oath 
(vv. 20-22). The Levitical priests, moreover, die one after another: 
Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand,—and that forms a third point of 
superiority,—since He ever liveth, is an unchangeable and intransitory 
priesthood (vv. 28-25). A fourth point of superiority is manifested in the 
distinction, that while the Levitical priests are sinful men, who each suc- 
cessive day must offer sacrifices for their own sins and the sins of the 
people, Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once for all has offered up 
Himself as a sacrifice (vv. 26-28). But not only as regards His own per- 


son is Christ exalted far above the Levitical priests: the sanctuary, too, in 


384 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


which He exercises the high-priestly functions, is exalted far above the 
Levitical one. For Christ administers His office of high priest in the 
heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself, of which, as the prototype, 
the earthly tabernacle in which the Levitical priests minister is a mere 
copy (vill. 1-5). So much more excellent is the personal ministry of 
Christ, inasmuch as the covenant, whose Mediator He is, is a better cove- 
nant, because resting upon the foundation of better promises. The char- 
acter of this promised new covenant is a more inner, spiritual one; and 
by the promise of a new covenant the old is declared to be worn out and 
no longer serviceable (vv. 6-13). In the disposition of the Mosaic sanec- 
tuary itself, and the ordering of the priestly ministration in conformity 
therewith, lies the indication on the part of God, that Mosaism is not 
itself the perfect religion, but only the preparatory institution for the same 
(ix. 1-8); as accordingly also the Levitical sacrifices, since they belong to 
the domain of carnal ordinance, are not in a position to make real atone- 
ment, whereas the sacrifice of Christ, presented by virtue of an eternal 
spirit through the efficacy of His own blood, possesses an everlasting 
power of atonement (vy. 9-14). In order to be the Middle Person of the 
New Covenant, Christ, however, must needs suffer death. That follows 
from the notion of a diafjxn, since such acquires a binding character only 
when the death of the d:aféuevoc has been before proved; as accordingly 
also the first, or Old Testament d:atj«xy, was not consecrated without blood, 
and without blood-shedding there is, under the Mosaic law, no forgiveness. 
For the consecration of the earthly sanctuary the blood of slain animals _ 
sufficed, but for the consecration of the heavenly sanctuary there was 
need of a more excellent sacrifice than these; this Christ has offered once 
for all:at the end of the world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death ; and 
in connection with His return, to be looked for unto the salvation of 
them that wait for Him,-no repetition of sacrifice will be necessary (vv. 
15-28). In the imperfection of the Mosaic law is to be sought the cause 
that under it the expiatory sacrifice is repeated every year; that repeti- 
tion contains the reminder that there are ever sins still present, as truly 
-a cancelling of sins by the blood of bulls and of goats is from the very 
nature of the case impossible (x. 1-4). Already in Scripture has it been 
expressed, that not by animal sacrifices, but only by the fulfilling of the 
will of God, deliverance from sins is to be attained. On the ground of 
this fulfillment of His will by Christ are we Christians sanctified (vv. 5-10). 
Hereupon the main distinction between the Old Testament high priest 
and the High Priest of the New Testament is once more brought into 


INTRODUCTION. 380 


relief—namely, in that the former daily repeats the same sacrifices with- 
out thereby effecting the cancelling of sin; the latter, on the other hand, 
by His sacrifice once offered, has wrought everlasting sanctification ; and 
finally, attention is drawn to the Scripture testimony, that there is no 
more need for further expiatory sacrifice (vv. 15-18). 

The readers in possession of such an High Priest, and the blessing 
mediated by Him, are to cleave with resolution and constancy to the 
Christian faith, to incite one another to love and good works, and not, as 
has become a practice with some, to forsake the religious assemblies. And 
the more so since the Advent is now close at hand (vv. 19-25). For he 
who wittingly contemns recognized Christian truth, and sins against it, 
will not escape the avenging judgment of God (vy. 26-31). Mindful of the 
Christian courage they have displayed in former days, the readers are not 
to lose their Christian cheerfulness, but to persevere in the Christian 
career; for only a short time longer will it be before the return of Christ, 
and the entrance into the promised fullness of blessing (vv. 32-89). The 
author hereupon defines the nature of the rioree which he requires of the 
readers, and then sets before them examples of the heroism of fasth from 
times gone by (chap. Xi.). In possession of such a multitude of examples, 
and with the eye fixed upon Jesus Himself, the readers are to endure 
with stedfastness the conflict which awaits them, and to regard their suf- 
ferings as a salutary chastisement on the part of that God who is full of 
fatherly love towards them (xii. 1-13). To this attaches an exhortation 
to concord and growth in holiness (vv. 14-17). The very constitution of 
the New Covenant, to which the readers have come, obliges them to the 
endeavor after sanctification. Whereas the Old Covenant bore the char 
acter of the sensuous, earthly, and that which awakens merely fear, the 
New Covenant has the character of the spiritual, heavenly, brings into 
communion with God and all holy ones, and confers reconciliation. The 
readers are therefore to be on their guard against apostatizing from the 
New Covenant, for their guilt and exposure to punishment would be 
thereby incomparably augmented. Rather should they be filled with 
gratitude towards God for the participation in the unshakable kingdom 
of the New Covenant, and serve Him with awe and reverential fear (Vv. 
18-29). To this are now appended exhortations to continued brotherly 
love (xiii. 1), to hospitality (ver. 9), to the assistance of prisoners and 
oppressed (ver. 3), to chastity (ver. 4), to the eschewing of covetousness and 
to contentment (vv. 5, 6), to the remembering of former teachers and the 
emulating of their faith (ver. 7), to the avoidance of unchristian doctrines 

25 


386 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWs. 


and precepts (vy. 8-15), to benevolence (ver. 16), to obedience towards the 
presidents of the congregation (ver. 17). There follows a call to intercession 
on behalf of the author (vy. 18, 19), a wish of blessing (vv. 20, 21), the 
petition for a friendly reception of the epistle (ver. 22), the communica- 
tion of a piece of intelligence (ver. 23), the prayer for the delivery of sal- 
utations, and, at the same time, the conveying of salutations to the read- 
ers (ver. 24), and the concluding wish of blessing (ver. 25). 


SEC. 4—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 


The epistle can only have been written at a late time. For, according 
to il. 8, xiii. 7 (comp. also v. 12, x. 32 ff.), the recipients belonged to a 
second generation of Christians. According to xiii. 7, the presidents and 
teachers of the congregation had already been snatched away from the 
same by death, and that a death by martyrdom. The death, too, of James, 
the brother of the Lord, who as president of the congregation at Jerusa- 
lem was reckoned one of the pillars of the Christian church (Gal. ii. 9), must 
thus have already taken place; as it is, moreover, on general grounds 
hardly conceivable that, so long as James was still living, an encroach- 
ment upon his province, by means of a letter of such tone and contents 
as are displayed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, should have been made 
by the author of this epistle. The Epistle to the Hebrews cannot there- 
fore have been written before the year 63 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9.1). Its 
time of composition, however, must yet fall in the period before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. For the presupposition that the Levitical service 
of the temple is still continuing, underlies the current of the whole epis- 
tle. Instances in proof are found not only viii. 4,5, ix. 6 ff., xiii. 10 ff, 
and specially ix: 9,—where the continued existence of the foretabernacle 
(or holy place) in the Jewish sanctuary is expressly explained as a typical 
reference to the time now being, in which the priests still continue to offer 
sacrifices which are unable to afford satisfaction to the conscience (comp. 
besides vii. 8, 20, vili. 13, x. 2),—but also in general a great part of the 
contents of the epistle, wherein the erroneous persuasion of the readers 
that the attainment of everlasting salvation is not possible without con- 
tinued participation in the Levitical sacrificial rites and temple cultus, is 
controverted by our author. Further, our epistle must have been com- 
posed even before the beginning of the Jewish war; for if this had already | 
broken out, distinct references thereto could not have been wanting. Yet 
it would seem that the commotions and insurrections which immediately 
preceded the outbreak of the Jewish war had already begun. For, x. 25, 


INTRODUCTION. 387 


reference is made to the fact that the visible signs of the approaching 
advent of Christ have already appeared before the eyes of the readers ; 
and their personal condition was, according to xii. 4 ff, xiii. 13, one of 
great suffering. That supposition is thus the most natural one which 
places the date of the epistle’s composition between the years 65 and 67. 

According to Orelli (Select. patrum eccles. capp- ad eionyntixiy sacram perti- 
nentia, P. L1., Turic. 1822, p. 4 sq.), the Epistle to the Hebrews was com- 
posed only towards the year 90; according to Holtzmann (Zeitschr. f. wiss. 
Theol. 1867, p. 6 f.), Harnack (Patrum Apostt. Opp. I. p. Ixxxii.), and others, 
only after the persecution under Domitian; according to Schwegler (Nach- 
apostolisches Zettalter, Bd. II. p. 309), somewhere about the close of the first 
century; according to Hausrath (Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch., 1st ed. IL. p. 
401 f.), only after Trajan’s persecution ; according to Volkmar (Religion 
Jesu, p. 388 f.) and Keim (Geschichte Jesu v. Nazara, Bd. I., Ziirich 1867, p. 
148 f., 636) only between the years 116-118. See, on the other hand, the 
remarks of Grimm in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 23 ff. Without 
ground does Mangold (in Bleek’s Einl. in d.N. T., 8d ed., Berlin 1875, p. 
617) object against the conclusiveness of Grimm’s reasoning, that ‘the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews conducts his argument on the basis 
of the Scripture representation of the tabernacle” as of “a purely ideal 
magnitude,” which does not guarantee “the actual continuance of the 
temple cultus.” This objection would be admissible if the preterites eiyev, 
ix. 1, and kareoxevacd7, ix. 2, had, in the formula which resumes all the 
previous description,—roitwr dé ovrwe kareokevacpéver, ver. 6,—been followed 
by a participle qorist. But it becomes directly impossible when instead 
thereof a participle perfect is chosen ; inasmuch as, by this construction, 
beyond doubt the opinion of the author is manifested that in the inner 
arrangement of the temple the inner arrangement of the tabernacle is 
still perpetuated. The following praesentia can therefore be understood 
only in the most strictly present sense, and not “as praesentia of the legal 
defining.” 

The place of composition is indeterminable. Only thus much is clear 
from xiii. 24, that it is to be sought outside of Italy. 


SEC. 5.—FORM AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. 


That the composition was an actual letter, and not, as has been assumed 
by Berger (Gotling. theol. Bibl., Th. IIL. St: 3, p. 449 ff.; Moral. Einleit. in 
das N. T., Th. III. p. 442 f. Comp. also Reuss, Geschichte der h. Schrr. N. T., 
5th ed., Braunschw. 1874, 2151), a homily, is acknowledged, and is, more- 


388 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


over, rendered certain by the personal allusions at the close of the com- 
position, since these admit neither of our regarding them, with Berger, as 
the later appendix of another author, nor, with Schwegler (Nachapostol- 
isches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 304), as a “literary fiction.” 

In like manner, the opinion frequently expressed in ancient times,— 
originally broached with a view to the removal of the difficulties arising 
from the literary character of the book, upon the presupposition of the 
authorship of the Apostle Paul,—and in recent times specially advocated 
by Joseph Hallet, jun., and John David Michaelis, that the epistle was 
originally composed in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and only after- 
wards translated into Greek, is at the present time universally recognized 
to be erroneous. Even on account of the great freedom with which the 
translator must have proceeded in the remoulding of the original,—on 
account of the purity in the Greek expression, the skill in the formation 
of genuine Greek periods, such as are foreign to the Aramaic,—on account 
of the many compound terms, the equivalent of which could have been 
expressed in Aramaic only by means of periphrases (as toAvmepoc Kai roAv- 
tpérwc, i. 1; aratyaopua,i. 3; petporabeiv, V. 2; evrepioratoc, xii. 1, etc.),—on 
account of the multitude of paronomasias, which could not possibly be in 
every case the work of chance (i. 1, 11. 2, ii. 3, ii. 8, 11. 10, ii. 18, iii. 18, iv. 
Bowe AVS, Ve $A, vil..3,)vil./9) vile 13, vil 19, 22° wins 25,24 ax 5 10) xe Don 
29, x. 34, x. 38, 39, xi. 27, xi. 37, xii. 24, 25, xiii. 14)—and on account 
of the ambiguous use of dcaOj«n, ix. 15 ff.,! this view is wanting in all prob- 
ability and naturalness. Absolutely inadmissible, however, it becomes 
oly from the fact that the author, not only in connection with his Biblical 
citations, but also in the conducting of his argument, bases his reasoning 
throughout upon the form of the text in the LXX., even when this ver- 
sion gives a sense entirely at variance with that of the original text. With 
particular distinctness does this appear x. 5 ff., where in place of the 
Hebrew » 2 DIS the entirely diverse cOua dé xatnptiow por of the LXX. 
8 adopted by our author, and then at ver. 10 the rpoogopa rod cuarTog ’Inoow 
Xpiorov brought into relation therewith. 


1 Nevertheless, as has already been observed the Chaldee Paraphrasts, as also in the Pe- 
Yy Braun, as also by Bleek, the Por shito,—might certainly also haye combined 
xrdopted by the Aramaic from the Greek and _ the twofold signification of a “covenant” and 
eecurring in the Talmud, as frequently also a “testament.” 
in the Peshito; or the Dips more usual with 


CHAP. IL 389 


‘H xpos ‘EBpaious éxtotody. 


A B K® have merely IIpo¢ ‘EGpaiove. Simplest and probably earliest super- 
scription. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1, én’ éoydtov] Elz.: éx’ éoydtwr. Against AB D E K L M8, most 
min., Vulg. Copt. a/., and many Fathers. The plural éo ya47w» arose from the 
Tv immediately following.—Ver. 2. In place of kai Tovc al@vag Exoincoev 
» of the Recepta, A B D* D*** KM 8, 17, 37, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. al., Patres 
Gr. et. Lat. m. have kai éroinoev tovc aidvac, Already recommended by 
Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. In addition to the strong 
attestation, this position of the words is favored by the internal ground that in 
this order the emphasis falls, as was required, upon évo0iycev, instead of falling 
upon Tove ai@vac.—Ver. 3. Before kadapiopudv, Elz. Wetst. Griesb. Matth. 
Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 7, Reiche (Commentarius Criticus in N. T., t. III. p. 6 sq.), 
with D***, almost all min. Syr. utr. (Aeth. ?) Ath. p. 362, Chrys. in text. et 
comm. dis., Oec. Theoph. Aug. (?) add 6’ éavrov. But d’ éavrod instead of 
which 6? aitov (according to Theodoret’s express observation to be read as d? 
avtov) is found with D* 137, Copt. Clar. Germ. Cyr. (semel) Didym. Theodoret, in 
t. et comm. Euthal. Damasce. in textu, is wanting in A B D** &, 17, 46* 47, 80, 
Vulg. Arm. Cyr. (saepe) Cyr. Hieros. pseudo-Athanas. (ed. Bened. ii. 337), 
Damase. (comm.) Sedul. Cassiod. Bede. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 
991). Rightly deleted as a gloss by Bleek, de Wette, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, 
and Alford. For although the addition 6? éavrov (by Himself, 7.e. by the offer- 
ing of Himself, inasmuch as He was at the same time High Priest and Victim) is 
in perfect keeping with the after deductions of the epistle, it is nevertheless not 
indispensable ; and though it is conceivable that 6 éavtov was taken up into the 
preceding airov, yet it is, on the other hand, hardly credible, seeing the endeavor 
of the author after linguistic euphony, that he should have placed the words 
avrov, 6’ éavtov (aitov) in immediate juxtaposition the one with the other.— 
Instead of tocyodmevocg TOV duaptLov, Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 
8, Alford read: TGv dwapti@v roinodpevoc. In favor of the latter decides 
the preponderant attestation on the part of A B D E M 8, 37, 46, al., Vulg. It. 
Cyr. Cyr. Hieros. Athan. Did. ps.-Athan. Dam. (comm.).—7ev ayaptiov] Elz. 
Matth. Scholz: tov duaprtiov Auav. But yudv is wanting in A B D* E* 
M &*, 67** al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Cyr. utr. Nyss. Didym. Damasc. Aug. 
Sedul. Cassiod. al. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 496) and Griesb. 
Rightly rejected by Lachm., Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Reiche, Alford. It was 
added as a dogmatic precaution, in order to guard against a referring of the words 
also to the own dyapria of the subject.—Ver. 8. paBdoc evdirytoc 7 pasdoc TH¢ 
BaoiAsiac cov] Instead of that, Lachm. in the edit. stereot. (as likewise Tisch. 8) 


390 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


read: cat (A B D* K* M 8, 17, Aeth. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Cyr.) 7 (A B M8, 
Cyr.) paBdocg tH¢ (ABM S8** Cyr.) evdtryto¢ paBdocg (A B M &** Cyr.) 
t7¢ BaotAeiac cov, In the later larger edition, vol. II., on the other 
hand, he has adopted kai paBdoc tHe ev¥ityTog PaBdog THE Bacl- 
Aciag cov, The kai at the beginning is, as also Bleek and Alford 
decide, to be looked upon as original, but in other respects the Recepta 
is to be retained, inasmuch as the 7 before the first paBdoc (in the first 
edition of Lachmann) would be a variation from the text presented by the 
LXX., such as could hardly be ascribed to the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, considering the closeness with which he follows that translation in other 
cases, and the purity in other respects of his Greek expression.—Ver. 9. avouiav] 
A®, 18, 23, al., Cyr. Chron. Alex. Eus. Chrys. ms. @dc«iav; preferred by Bleek, 
since it is also found in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. Adopted also by Tisch. 8. 
But avouiav might easily be changed into adcxvay, since the latter formed a more 
direct opposite to the preceding d:cavoovvyy.—Ver. 12. éAvE e¢ ] Beza, Bengel, Tisch. 
8: aAAdgecc. Only insufliciently supported by D*8* 48, Vulg. (not Harl.*) It. 
Tert.—airoi¢] Lachm.: avtovc¢, o¢ iwarcoy, after A B D* E 8, Aeth. Arm. - 
Clar. Germ. Spite of the strong authority, an apparent gloss, explanatory of 
aoe TeptBddacov. 


Vy. 1-4. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note XLI., pages 410-414.] Without beginning 
with the ordinary salutation, with the omission even of any kind of pre- 
face, the author proceeds at once to place the revelation of God in Christ 
in contrast with the revelations of God under the Old Covenant, inasmuch 
as he characterizes the revelations under the Old Covenant as imperfect, 
while he shows the perfection of this new revelation by a description of 
the incomparable dignity of its Mediator. With vy. 1-8 the author strikes 
the keynote for all that which he is subsequently to disclose to the 
readers. The utterances of these three verses afford the theme of his 
whole epistle. [XLI a.] For the later dogmatic disquisitions are only the 
more full unfolding of the same; and for the later paraeneses they form 
thé motive and fundamental consideration. To ver. 4, however,—which 
combines grammatically with that which precedes into the unity of a 
well-ordered, rhetorically vigorous and majestic period,—vyv. 1-3 stand 
related as the universal to the particular, since that which was before ex- 
pressed in a more general way is in ver. 4 brought into relief on a special 
side, which finds in the sequel its detailed development, in such wise that 
then ver. 4 in turn forms, as regard its conten%s, the theme for the first 
section of the epistle (i. 4-11. 18). 

On vv. 1-8 comp. L. J. Uhland, Dissert. Theol. ad Hebr. 1. 1-3, Pars I., 
II., Tubing. 1777, 4—G. M. Amthor, Commentatio exegetico-dogmatica in 
tres priores versus epistolae ad Hebraeos scriptae (Coburg), 1828, 8.—(J. G. 
Reiche), In locum epist. ad Hebr. i. 1-8 observationes, Gotting. (Weihnachts- 
programm) 1829, 4. 

Ver. 1. Modtvuepie kai roAvtpéra¢ «.7.2.] [XLI b.] After God had spoken. 
oftentimes and in manifold ways of old time to the fathers in the prophets. 
The twofold expression toAvuepac Kai ToAvtpémwc¢ (comp. Maximus 
Tyrius, Dissert. vii. 2, xvii. 7) is by no means merely rhetorical amplifica- 


CHAP. I. 1. 391 


tion of one and the same idea (Chrysostom: rovréote diadépwc ; Michaelis, 
Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Reiche, Tholuck,! and others). Té 
roAvuwepéc is that which is divided into many parts (r6 ig TOAAG peEpifduevor, 
Hesychius). IToAvuepae¢ therefore presents the Aadeiv of former ages 
from the point of view of something which was accomplished in a multi- 
plicity of successive acts, whereas toAutpérwc brings out the manifold 
character of the modality in which, in connection with those acts, the 
Aadeiv Was accomplished. Common thus to both expressions is, indeed, 
the notion of changeful diversity; but the former marks the changeful 
diversity of the times in which, and the persons through whom, God 
revealed Himself; the latter, the changeful diversity of the divine revela- 
tions as regards contents and form. For not only was the substance and 
extent of the single revelations disproportioned, but also the modes of 
their communication varied, inasmuch as God spoke to the recipients of 
His revelations sometimes by means of visions and dreams, sometimes 
mouth to mouth (comp. Num. xii. 6 ff.), sometimes immediately, some- 
times by the intervention of an angel, sometimes under the veil of symbols 
and types, sometimes without these? By the very choice of roAvuepi¢ Kai 
modvtpérw¢e Our author indicates the imperfection of the O. T. revelations. 
No single one of them contained the full truth, for otherwise there would 
have been no need of a succession of many revelations, of which the one 
supplemented the other. And just so was the continual change in the 
modes of communicating these revelations a sign of imperfection, inas- 
much as only a perfect form of communication corresponds to the perfect 
truth.—As, moreover, on the one hand, by means of the adverbs the im- 
perfection of the O. T. revelation is indicated in contrast with the perfec- 
tion of the N. T. revelation; so, on the other hand, by means of the 
identity of the subject 6 @eé6¢ in AadAgoac and éAdAnoev, the inner connec- 
tion between the revelations of the O. T. and that of the N. T. is brought 
into relief, and in this way attention is tacitly drawn to the fact that the 
former was the divinely appointed preliminary stage and preparation for 


1 The last-named expositor would otherwise 
expect an antithetical amads (!) or epamaé at 
the close of the verse. 

2 Erroneously does Grimm (Theol. Litera- 
turbl. to the Darmstadt A. A. Z. 1857, No. 29, 
p. 661) raise against the above explanation, 
according to which woAvtpémws has respect 
not only to the purport, but also at the same 
time to the form of the divine revelations, 
the objection that the properly understood 
ey tots mpod. (see below) does not accord 
therewith, inasmuch as revelations “mouth 
to mouth,” or by the intervention of angels, 
would not have been a speaking of God in the 
prophets, but to (mpos) the same. For what 
is spoken of (ver. 1) is not the relation of God 
to the prophets in itself alone, but the rela- 
tion of God to the fathers through the medium 
of the prophets. The fact, however, that the 


prophets, as men in whom God was present, 
brought to the knowledge of the fathers the 
revelations received, is independent of the 
way and manner in which those revelations 
were previously communicated to themselves 
by God.—Since, moreover, the prophets as 
recipients of revelation in the first rank are 
distinguished from the fathers as recipients 
of revelation in the second rank, and only an 
interweaving of the relation of God to both 
takes place, we cannot assume either, with 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 90), who in 
other respects rightly explains roAvutporws, 
that the form of the communication of the 
word of God to the prophets is to be taken 
into account only so far as a duly propor- 
tioned form corresponded to it, even as in 
the prophetic word the revelation of God be 
came known to the fathers. 


392 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the latter —[XLI ¢.]—7ra2.a] of old, in long bygone times. For Malachi was 
looked upon as the last of the O. T. prophets, and since his appearing 
already from four to five centuries had elapsed. Delitzsch: rd4a is not 
so much antiquitus as antehac, since the contrast is not between ancient and 
recent or new, but between past and present. Wrongly; for the opposition 
of a ‘“‘ prius” and “ post” had certainly been already expressed by Aadjoac 
and éAdAnoev, whereas mada: still finds its special, and indeed very signifi- 
cant opposition in éx’ écydrov tév juspov Tobrwv, and must accordingly be 
explained after the analogy of this—Aade] particularly in our epistle of 
very frequent use, to indicate divine revelations. Comp. ii. 2, 3, iii. 5, vii. 
14, ix. 19, xi. 18, xil. 24, 25.—roic xatpdow] to the fathers (forced, and need- 
lessly ; Kurtz: roic ratpdow, and equally so afterwards juiv, is dativus com- 
modi) t.e. to the forefathers of the Jewish people. Comp. Rom. ix. 5. The 
expression in its absolute use characterizes author and recipients as born 
Jews.—rpog7ta] is to be taken in the widest sense, in such wise that all 
holy men of the O. T. history who received revelations from God are 
comprehended under it. For unquestionably the aim of the discussion now 
begun, that of expressing the pre-eminence of the revelation contained in 
Christ over each and all of the O. T. revelations, demands this. But thus 
must Moses also, and very specially, be reckoned as belonging to the zpogqraz, 
since Moses held the first rank in the series of development of the pre- 
Christian revelations; as, accordingly, iii. 2 ff., the superiority of Christ 
even over Moses is expressly asserted. Nor does the wider acceptation 
of zpo¢y#rac encounter any difficulties on the ground of Biblical usage. 
Comp. e.g. Gen. xx. 7, where Abraham is spoken of as a xpo@grn¢ (8°22.) 
Deut. xxxiy. 10, where it is said of Moses: kai ov« avéotn ete mpodgrne év ‘Iopana 
&¢ Mwoiojc.'\—By virtue of this wider acceptation of xpodjra in itself, the 
opinion of Er. Schmid and Stein, that év roi¢ mpogpracc signifies: “in the 
prophetic Scriptures,’ becomes an impossibility ; quite apart from the 
consideration that this interpretation is also sufficiently refuted by the 
antithesis év vig. But just as little is é roic mpoofrae to be made equiva- 
lent to dca tév mpopytdv For the linguistic character of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews affords no warrant for the supposition of such a Hebraism in 
the interchange of prepositions. Nor is this proved by ix. 25, to which 
Tholuck appeals in following the precedent of Fritzsche (Jen. Literaturzeit. 
1848, p. 59). ’Ev is of more extensive significance than dca. While the 
latter would signify the mere medium, the mere instrument, év implies that 
God, in revealing Himself to the fathers by the prophets, was present in 
the latter, was indwelling in them, in such wise that the prophets were 
only the outward organs of speech for the God who spoke in them. 
Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3; Matt. x. 20.—é’ éoydrov tov juepov tobtov] Anti- 
thesis to ré4a. Wrongly does Delitzsch, with the approval of Meier, take 


1Philo, too (de nom. mut. p. 1064 A, ed. Man- Tholueck, Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Bloom-. 
gey, I. p. 597), calls Moses the apxirpodyrys. field, Delitzsech, Maier, and M’Caul. 

2As is done by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 8 Comp. also Schnéckenburger in the Theol 
Theophylact, Primasius, Luther, Calvin, Gro- Stud. u. Krit. 1861, H. 3, p. 557. 
tius, and the majority, also B6hme, Reiche, 


CHAP. I. 2. 393 


rév juepov Tobrwv as apposition to én’ éoydrov: “at the period’s close, which 
these days form,’—for which, on account of the article before juepov, the 
placing of éxi row éoydrov would at least have been required,—while he 
then still more arbitrarily finds in écyatov rév juepov “the expression 
indicative of one idea, equivalent to D0 8,” and makes roirwv 
belong logically to the whole idea! The juépac aita are identical with 
that which is elsewhere called 6 ai@v oiroc, in opposition to 6 aidv uéAAwv. 
The demonstrative totroy refers to the fact that these juépac are the 
period of time in which the author equally as his readers lives, and of an 
éoyatov of these juépac he speaks, because like all N. T. writers—the 
author of the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 4 ff.) excepted—he regards the 
return of Christ, for the transforming of the present order of the world and 
the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom, as near at hand; comp. 
x. 87, ix: 26.—juiv] to us, namely, who belong to the age just mentioned, 
Antithesis to toi¢ matpdow.—év vig] anar- 
throus, as vil. 28; not because vidc has acquired the nature of a nomen 
proprium,’ but for the indication of the essential property : in one (to wit, 
Christ) who is not merely prophet—who is more than that, namely, Son. 
Vy. 2-4. EXLI d.] The author unfolds the idea of superiority contained 
in vid, ver. 1, in sketching a brief portraiture in full of the Son of God, 
and setting vividly before the readers the incomparable dignity of this 
Son, as manifested in each single one of the various periods of His life. 
Ver. 2. As far as tij¢ duvayewc avtov, ver. 3. The dignity of the Son as 
the premundane Logos.—T:3évac with double accusative, in the sense 
of roeiv twa tt, is no Hebraism (DW, WW), but is very frequent with the 
classics.2. "ESy«ev, however, has reference not so much to the time when 
Christ, having completed the work of redemption, has returned to the 
Father in heaven (so the Greek expositors; and in like manner Prima- 
sius, Erasmus (Paraphr.), Calvin, Cameron, Corn. a Lapide, Grotius, 
Schlichting, Calov, Hammond, Braun, Limborch, Storr, Ebrard, Delitzsch, 
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 295 ff.;* Maier, Moll, and others), but 


the écyatov tev nuepOv TobTwr. 


Christ are described in their historic succes- 
sion, so that only in connection with the in- 

2Comp. e.g. Herodian, Hist. v. 7.10; ’Eq’ termediate member—or . .. dépwv Te «.7.A., 
ois “AvTwvivos Tavy noXaAAE Kat METEYLYVMOKE, ver. 3 (see on the verse)—there resounds 
throughout, in addition to the main reference 


1Béhme, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, 
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 272. 


Riehm, 


Aguevos avTov viovy Kal KolWwvov THS apxys; 


Xenophon, Cyrop. iv. 6.3: womep av evdaipova 
matépa Tats Tin@v 7LHein; Aeclian, Var. Hist. 
xiii. 6; Homer, Odyss. ix. 404, al. Comp. also 
Elsner ad loc.; Kuthner, II. p. 226. 

3 According to Riehm, the author first (ver. 
2) glaneed at the final point of the power of 
the Redeemer, and then at the beginning 
thereof, and after this (ver. 3) described the 
way to that final point with respect to the 
beginning. But however delicate and acute 
this conception of the subject, it is too greatly 
refined and artificial. In point of simplicity 
and naturalness it falls short of the view that 
at vv. 2,3 the various phases of the life of 


to an earlier condition of the life of Christ, at 
the same time the subordinate reference toa 
later condition of His life. That which 
Riehm urges in support of his own view, and 
in refutation of the opposite one, is easily dis- 
posed of. When he thinks, in the first place, 
that only by his apprehension the whole 
structure of the period becomes thoroughly 
clear, this is already shown to be inaccurate 
by the fact that the simple is always more 
clear than the complex. For even if it be 
admitted in some respects that a new division 
of thought begins with the 6s, ver. 3, which 
specially brings into relief the subject, where- 


394 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


relates to the appointment made in the eternal decree of God before all 
time; thus has reference to Christ as the premundane Logos. This appli- 
cation is required in order to a due proportion with the declarations 
immediately following, and to the logical development of the well thought 
out periods, in which the discourse reaches the exaltation of the incarnate 
Redeemer only with éddicev iv deed tHe peyadwoivyg év bWydoic, ver. 38. 
The idea of the pre-existence of Christ or the Son of God as the eternal 
Logos with its nearer definitions, as this comes forth here and in that 
which immediately follows, is the same as is met with also in Paul’s 
writings.’ Yet, in the shaping of this idea on the part of the author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, not only the teaching of Paul, but likewise the 
Logos-speculations of Philo, with whose writings the Epistle to the 
Hebrews has manifold points in common, have not been without influ- 
ence.—«Aypovduov ravrav] heir, i. e. (futur 2 Possessor and Lord of all things, 
namely, of the world? Comp. Gal. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 17.—dv ob] by whom. 
Grammatically unwarranted, Grotius : propter quem (d? 6v). Comp. also 
il. 10.—ai éroinoev] The emphasis falls upon the word éroiyoev, on that 
account preposed, while rode aiévag only takes up again under a varying 
form a notion already expressed in that which precedes, and «aé indicates 


no heightening of the expression (even, or more than this ; 


as before 6 @eds was the subject, yet nothing 
is to be inferred from this, because the 
character of the relative statements, ver. 2, is 
not changed thereby, inasmuch as the refer- 
ence to God assuredly appears in the third 
relative clause, namely, in xexAypovopunxer, 
ver. 4. When Riehm further Gontends that 
in his explanation yer. 2 agrees much better 
with that which precedes,—inasmuch as by 
the vies, ver. 1, the historie Christ is con- 
fessedly to be understood, but now an inex- 
plicable leap in the thought would arise, if 
the author had first ascribed to the historie 
Christ a number of predicates, which were 
appropriate to Him only as the premundane 


Logos, and should only afterwards speak of - 


His present glory,—-this contention is already 
sufficiently refuted by the wholly parallel 
procedure of the Apostle Paul, Phil. ii. 5 ff, 
who likewise takes his departure from the 
historic Christ, and then, in the same order 
which Riehm calls an “inexplicable leap in 
the thought,” attaches thereto further state- 
ments with regard to the person of the Re- 
deemer. Moreover, in our passage the order 
of suecession censured as an “inexplicable 
leap in the thought” is perfectly justified, 
because vids, ver. 1, is the total expression, 
which, as such, includes in itself all the stadia 
in the life of Christ; and thus from it one 
might proceed with equal justice immediately 
to the premundane Christ as to the exalted 
Christ. If Riehm further supposes that in 
connection with the appointment as heir, ver. 


Wolf and 


2, we cannot think of a destination made in 
the eternal decree of God, then the analogous 
declaration of Scripture: marépa moAA@v €Ovav 
Téecka oe, Rom. iv. 17, already proves the 
opposite; and if he finds the expression 
kAnpovomos appropriate only to the incarnate 
Son, inasmuch as the name could hardly 


“otherwise occur in connection with riOévac 


than in reference to a possession which the 
kAnpovonos once had not, there underlies this 
objection only this amount of truth, namely, 
that the expression «Anpovoxos no doubt in- 
cludes in itself a reference pointing to the 
future; but that which it is designed to ex- 
press by the first relative clause is assuredly 
also only the thought that Christ was in the 
ideal sense before all time appointed or made 
something, which in the real sense He could 
only be in the full extent at the end of all 
time. When, finally, Riehm believes that 
dv EOnKev KANpovomoy TavTwr, Ver. 2, must be 
understood of the dominion of the exalted 
Christ, for the reason that the passage i. 8, 9, 
bearing upon the dominion of the exalted 
Christ, is supposed to refer back to those 
words, this is altogether erroneous, since a 
special referring back on the part of i. 8, 9 to 
the opening proposition of ver. 2 is not by 
any means to be admitted. See below, Les 
analysis of contents of vy. 5-14. 

1Comp. Col. i. 15 ff.; Phil. ii. 6; 1 Cor. viii. 
6, x. 4, xv. 47; 2 Cor. iv. 4, viii. 9. 

2Chrysostom: T@ S& rod KAnpovdmov dbvduare 
kexpntat, dvo SnA@v, kal Td THs VidTHTOS yryCLOV, 


CHAP. I. 2. 395 


others), but is intended to bring out the accordance between the state- 
ment in the second relative clause and that in the first; so that the fact 
that by the Son the aiaveg were created is made to follow as something 
quite natural, from the fact that He was by God constituted KkAypovdpoc 
ravruv (by whom He also created, etc.). Wrongly does Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrierbr. p. 298 f.) invert the relation of the two members indicated 
by «ai, in finding out the sense : “the installation of the Son in the office 
of the world’s dominion is in entire accordance with the fact that by the 
Son the world was created; in other words, from the relation of the Son 
to God and the world, revealed in the latter fact, His installation in the 
office of the world’s dominion presents nothing extraordinary, but rather 
appears something which we could not at all expect to be otherwise.” 
[So in substance Owen, who seeks to combine the two meanings of 
ruséva.] Had this been meant, then 6? ob éroiyoev rove ai@vac, dv Kat 
BOnKev KAnpovopov TavtTov must have been written. For the «ai of the second 
clause accentuates the fact that what follows is in accord with that which 
precedes, not that what precedes is in accord with that which follows. 
Comp. Phil. iii. 20, where by means of kai the fact that we expect the 
Lord Jesus Christ from heaven as a deliverer is represented as something 
quite natural, since our roAirevya is in heaven; but not conversely is the 
fact that our xodirevua is in heaven deduced from the presupposition of 
our expecting Christ from thence.—rove aiavac| does not here denote the 
ages; either in such wise that the totality of the periods of time from the 
creation of the world to its close is meant (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Daniel Heinsius), for this thought 
would be too abstract ; or in such wise that the two main periods in the 
world’s history—the pre-Messianic and the Messianic—are to be under- 
stood thereby (Paulus, Stein), for in connection with the absolute rov¢ ai@vac 
no one could have thought of this special division into two parts. Nor 
must we either apprehend rove aidvac of the Aecons in the sense of the 
Gnostics (Amelius in Wolf, Fabriciss, Cod. Apocryph. N. T.1.p. 710) ; for at 
the time when our author wrote this notion of the word did not yet exist. 
rove ai@vac is to be understood of the worlds, of the totality of all things 
existing in time (and space), so that it is identical with the preceding 
xévtev and the following ra zavra of ver. 3. 6 aiay, it is true, has always 
with the classics the strict notion of duration of time ; but, as in the case 
of the Hebrew 02)); this notion might easily pass over into the wider 
notion of that which forms the visible contents of time, thus into that of 
the complex of all created things. This interpretation is confirmed by 
the reading of xi. 3, where aidvec cannot possibly be used in any other 
sense.—As parallel passages to this second relative clause of ver. 2, express- 
ing the thought of a creation of the universe by the premundane Son of 
God, comp. in Paul’s writings, Col. i. 16: 1 Cor. viii. 6; in those of John, 
John i. 3,10. Philo, too, supposes the world was created by the Logos, 
as the earliest or first-born Son of God.' 


Kal To THs KUpLOTHTOS AvanogTaaToV. p. 162): i8€ Thy peyloTny oiKiav 7 modu, Toves 
1Comp. de Cherubim, p. 129 (ed. Mangey, I. Tov Koopov" evpyceis yap aitiov ev avTou Tur 


396 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
Ver. 3. Continued description of the dignity of the Son. The main 
declaration of the verse, é¢ éxddicev év deEta tHE peyadwobvyg Ev inroic, is 
established on the grounds presented in the preceding participles dv... 
gépov ve. . . Touodpuevoc. The grounding, however, is a twofold one, inas- 
much as the participles present still relate to Christ as the Aédyo¢ dcapxoc, 
and describe His nature and sway, while the participle aorist has as its 
contents the redeeming act of the Adyo¢ évoapxoc. Of the two present par- 
ticiples, the first corresponds to the former half of the proposition, ver. 2, 
and the second to the latter half—év azaiyacua] not: quum esset, but : 
quum sit araby., or as axabyaoua. For the evar arabyacpya x.7.2. and dépew 
Ta ravra x.7.A., Which was appropriate to the Son of God in His prehuman 
form of existence, has, after the exaltation or ascension has taken place, 
become again appropriate to Him.!—aratyaoua] [XLI e.] an Alexandrian 
word, occurring Wisd. vii. 26, and frequently with Philo, but only here in 
the N. T. It is explained either (1) as a beaming forth or radiance, i. e. as 
a ray which flows forth from the light, e.g., of the sun.? Or (2) as image, 
reflected radiance, i.e. as a likeness formed by reflex rays, reflection. In 
favor of the former interpretation it may be advanced that Hesychius 
paraphrases azaiyascua by jiov déyyoc; and in Lexic. Cyrilli ms. Brem. are 
found the words: aratyacua axtic Hiov, 4 mpdrn Tov ALaKod gwrd¢ aroBorg, 
as accordingly also Chrysostom and Theophylact explain aratyacua by 
d@¢ &k gwréc, the latter with the addition 1d azatyaoua ék Tov AAiov Kai ovy 
vorepov avrov; and Theodoret observes: Td yap azabyacua Kai éx tov rupd¢ 
éote Kai obv TH Tupi éore Kai aitiov piv Eyer TO vp, AYdpioTov dé EoTL TOU 
mupoc’ && ob yap TO Top, && Ekeivov Kai 7d arabyacua. But without reason 
does Bleek claim, in favor of this first interpretation, also the usage of 
Philo and Wisd. vii. 26. For in the passage of Philo, de Speciall. legg. 211 
(ed. Mangey, IT. p. 356), which Bleek regards as “ particularly clear” (Td 
& éupvoduevov [Gen. ii. 7] d7A0v Oc aibépiov jv rvevua Kar ei df Te albepiov 


* 


Gedv, vd’ ob yéyovev, UAnv Sé Ta Téocapa 
é& ov Opyavov sé 
Ocov, de’ oF 


ouveKkpaén, 
kKaTeckevacdy, 


oTOLXELa, 
Adyov - 


THs 6€ KatacKevyns aitiay Thy ayaboryTa Tov- 


Snpcovpyov.—De Monarch. lib. ii. p. 823 B (ed. 
Mangey, II. p. 225): Adyos 6€ eri cixwy Geod, 
6.’ oF Gupmas 0 K6omOoS Edy MLOV_P- 
yeito.—Legg. allegor. lib. iii. p. 79 A (ed. 
Mangey, [. p. 106); oxra Bcod S5é 6 Adyos avTod 
éoTlv, @ KabdTweEp bpyavw mpoaxXpyaa- 
MEVOS EkOTMOTOLEL. 

1 Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 159 f., 2d ed.; 
comp. also his remarks in the Commentary, 
p. 64 ff.) believes that the év amavyacua k.T.A. 
and the ¢épwv ta wavra «.7.A. must be referred 
exclusively to the exalted Christ, but on 
untenable grounds. For from the consider- 
ation that 6épwv re ra wavra “forms the 
most unambiguous contrast to the condition 
of Christ’s life in the flesh,” nothing is to be 
argued in favor of this view; because this 
contrast is equally to be supposed, when we 


understand these words alike of the premun- 
dane as of the exalted Christ. The further 
assertion, however, that in the case of a re- 
ferring of ®v amavyaocua. k.t.A. to that 
whieh Christ is apart from His humanity, 
the declaration ver. 3 must haye been con- 
nected by means of 6s éaru instead of dv, is 
lacking in all grammatical support. or, se 
far as concerns the sense, there is no differ- 
ence whatever between és éorw and ov: only 
regard for rhetorical euphony and the due 
rounding off of the periods determined the 
author upon expressing himself as he did. 
2So Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, 
and Hofmann, after the example of Clarius, 
Jac. Cappellus, Gomar., Schlichting, Gerhard, 
Caloy, Owen, Rambach, Peirce, Calmet, Heu- 
mann, Béhme, Reiche. ‘ 
So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wit- 
tich, Limborch, Stein, Grimm (Theol. Litera- 
turbl. to the Darmstadt A. Kirch.-Z. 1857, No. 
29, p. 661, and in his Lewric. NV, T. p. 36), Nickel 


CHAP Ista: 397 


mvEevpaTog KpEITTOV, ATE THC pwakapiag Kal Tplouakapiag gicews anatyaoyua), there 
is found no ground of deciding either for or against this acceptation of the 
word. The other two passages of Philo, however, which are cited by 
Bleek, tell less in favor of it than against it. For in the former of these 
arabyacua is explained by éxuayeiov [impression] and az écracua [shred] 
as synonyms, in the latter by wiunua |copy}. (De Opific. Mundi, p. 33 D, 
in Mangey, I. p. 35: wag avbpwroe Kara pév THv didvorav Gikeiwrar Bei Adyw, 
THG aKapiag pvoews éExuayeiov 7 axédotacua  arabyacua yeyovec, Kata dé THY 
TOV G@puaTog KaTaoKERY anavte TP Kbouw.—De plantat. Noe, p. 221 C, Mang. I. 
p. 8387: To dé dyiacua oiov ayiwy arabyacua, piunua apyetirou™ éxei Ta aicbAcer 
Kada Kai vogoee Kar@v eixdvec.) Finally, there are found also, Wisd. vii. 26, 
as kindred expressions, besides azatyacua, the words écortpov and eikév. 
(Arabyaoua yap éote dwrd¢ aidiov Kal ésonTpov aKnAidwrov THE TOU Aeod évepyeiac 
Kai eikOv THC ayabérytoc aitov.) The decision is afforded by the form of the 
word itself. Inasmuch as not aravyacuéc, but aravyacua is written, an 
active notion, such as would be required by Bleek’s acceptation, cannot be 
expressed by it, but only a passive one. Not the ray itself, but the result 
thereof must be intended. For as ar7yna denotes that which is produced 
by the aznyeiv, the resonance or echo, and azockiasua that which is pro- 
duced by the amooxafev, the shadow cast by an object, so does araiyacua 
denote that which is produced by the aravydfew. ’Araiyacua is therefore 
to be rendered by reflected radiance, and a threefold idea is contained in 
the word—(1) the notion of independent existence, (2) the notion of 
descent or derivation, (3) the notion of resemblance.—ryc déEyc] of His 
(the divine) glory or majesty. For the following ai70% belongs equally to 
tho ObEno AS tO THE brooTdcEwc.—Kat yapaKtip THe broctdcewc avTov] [XLI f.] 
and as impress of His essential being, so that the essential being of the 
Father is printed forth in the Son, the Son is the perfect image and coun- 
terpart of the Father. Comp. Philo, de plantat. Noé, p. 217 A (ed. Mangey, 
I. p. 832), where the rational soul (} Aoyc«y yvyx7) is called a coin which 
stands the test, ovoweioa kat turwSeica odpayidse Geor, 7¢ 6 YapaKTHp 
éoriv aidcoc Adyoc. Inthe N. T. the word yapaxr#p is found only in 
this place. To interpret izéoracvc, however, in the sense of rpdcwrov, or 
“Person,” ! is permitted only by later usage, not by that of the apostolic 
age. For the rest, that which is affirmed by the characteristic arabyacua 
the d6Enc Kal yapaxtip tHe brootdcewc avrov, the Apostle Paul expresses, Col. 
i. 15, by eixdv rod Oeod rod dopdrov, and, Phil. ii. 6 (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4), by év 
uopoy cov imdpywv.—dépov te Ta TdvTa TO phuare THC Suvdpewc aitod] [XLI g.] 
and as He who upholds the whole creation by the word of His power. Comp. 
Col. i, 17: Kat ra révra év abre ovvéoryxev; Philo. de Cherub. p. 114 (ed. 
Mang. I. p. 145): 6 mrydadsoiyor Kat KvBepvirng tov mavTo¢ Adyo¢ Beioc.—r a 
xévra is not to be limited, with the Socinians, to the kingdom of grace, 
but is identical with wévrev; and rove aidvac, ver. 2, thus denotes the com- 


{Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct., p. 17), Moll, and exposition], Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a La- 


others; so substantially also Riehm (Lehrbegr. pide, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Caloy, Sebastian 
aes Hebrderbr. p. 279). Schmidt, Bellarmin, Braun, Brochmann, 


1Thomas Aquinas, Caietan, Calvin [in the Wolf, Suicer. 


398 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


plex of all created things. On gépecy in the signification: to uphold any- 
thing, so that its continued existence is assured, comp. Plutarch, Lucull. 6 : 
gépew tyv réAWJI—rO phuate TI¢ Suvapews avtou| more emphatic than if 76 
phate avtov 7 dvvatg@ Were written, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, Stengel, 
Tholuck, Bloomfield would, without reason, make the words equivalent.? 
—Not the gospel, however, is meant by pjua tio duvapewc; but as by the 
word of Omnipotence the world was created (comp. xi. 3), so is it also by 
the word of Omnipotence upheld or preserved.—airoi] goes back to dc, 
thus to the Son, not to God (Grotius, Peirce, Reiche, Paulus). [XLI h.J— 
kabapiouov Tov duaptiov Tomodpuevoc] after He had accomplished a cleansing 
from the sins. [XLIi.] Progress of the discourse to the dignity of the 
Son as the eternal Logos incarnate, or the Redeemer in His historic ap- 
pearing on earth. The nearer defining of the sense conveyed by the 
declaration ; kaBapicuov Tov duapti@v roioauevoc,—with regard to the gram- 
matical expression of which LXX. of Job vii. 21, 2 Pet. i. 9, may be com- 
pared,—was naturally presented to the readers. As the object on which 
the kaapicud¢ was wrought was understood as something self-evident, the 
world of mankind, which until then was under the defiling stain of sins, 
without possessing the power for its own deliverance; as the means, how- 
ever, by which the ka@apicud¢ was accomplished, the atoning death of 
Christ. [Owen compares the lustrations, i. e. purifications by sacrifice, and 
cites Lucian’s piouev piv abtov tov Kpnuvov Kkabapiouov Tov otpaTod éoduevor, 
“We shall cast him down headlong for an expiation of the army.’’] To 
conceive of the duapriac themselves as a direct object to kabapioudv, to 
which Bleek and Winer, Gramm. 5th ed. p. 214 (differently, 6th ed. p. 168, 
7th ed. p.176 [E. T. 187]), were inclined, and in favor of which Delitzsch 
and Alford (comp. also Hofmann ad loc.) pronounce themselves with 
decision,—in such wise that these are thought of as the disease of the 
human race, which is healed or put away by Christ,—is not at all war- 
ranted by the isolated and less accurate form of expression : éxaBapioAn 
avtov 4 Aéxpa, Matt. vill. 3. Nor is it requisite to supply azé before tay 
duaptiav, and assume a pregnancy of expression, since xafapéc and its 
derived words are not only connected by azé, but likewise, with equal 
propriety, by the bare genitive.®—éxdAoev év deed tHe peyadoobvye év iyAvic} 
sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Culminating point of the 
description. Characteristic of the dignity of the Son after the completed 
work of redemption, in the period of His return to the Father, which fol- 
lowed the period of His self-abasement. The sitting at the right hand of 
God is a well-known figure, derived from Ps. cx. 1, in order to designate 


1Valerius Maximus, xi. 8.5: Humeris ges- ab eo sustentatur orbis. 


tare salutem patriae; Cicero, pro Flacco, ec. 
38: Quam (rempublicam) vos universam in 
hoe judicio vestris humeris, vestris inquam 
humeris, judices sustinetis; Seneca, Ep. 31: 
Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse 
vehit omnia; Herm. Past. iii. 9. 14: Nomen 
Filii Dei magnum et immensum est et totus 


2O0ecumenius: pHpma Sé ele Secxvis mavra 
eVKOAwS avToV ayew Kat dépev. Theophylact: - 
THALKOUTOVY GyKov THs KTigEws TOV UTEepmEyav 
@s ovdév avros SiaBactager Kai Adyw povy 
mavTa Suvaneva, 

3See Kuthner, II, p. 163. 


CHAP. I. 4. 399 


supreme honor and dominion over the world (Rom. vii. 34, al.).—év 
dyyaoie] Comp. Ps. xciii. 4, exiii. 5; tantamount to év roi¢ obpavoic, Heb. 
viii. 1; or é roig érovpaviow, Eph. i. 20; or év ipiorow, Luke ii. 14, xix. 38, 
al. The addition belongs not to peyatwoovnc (Beza, BOhme, Bleek, Ebrard, 
Alford),—since otherwise the article would be repeated,—but to éxatioev. 
The plural év dprAoic is explained from the supposition of several heavens, 
in the highest of which the throne of the Divine Majesty was placed. 

Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-6, see Note XLIIL., pages 414+416.] The author has 
first, vv. 1-8, instituted a parallel between the mediators of the Old Testa- 
ment revelations in general or i pleno, and the Mediator of the Christian 
revelation. [XLII a.] But among the revelations of God under the Old 
Covenant, none attained in point of glory to the Mosaic ; inasmuch as 
this was given not only through the medium of a man enlightened by the 
Spirit of God,—#. e. by one of the mpogqy7a, mentioned ver. 1,—but, accord- 
ing to the universal J ewish belief (vid. ad ii. 2), was given by the instru- 
mentality not only of Moses, but also of angels. As, therefore, the author 
has maintained the superiority of Christ, as the Son of God, over the 
mpoomtar, so is he now naturally further led to show the superiority of 
Christ over the angels also. This is done in the declaration, ver. 4, which 
in a grammatical sense is closely connected with that which precedes, 
and serves for the completing of the description of Christ’s characteristic 
qualifications ; at the same time, however, logically regarded, affords the 
theme for the following disquisition, which constitutes the first section of 
the epistle (i. 5-ii. 18).—The supposition of Tholuck, that the addition of 
ver. 4 “has an independent object,” 7. ¢. 1s oceasioned by polemic refer- 
ence to the opinion spread abroad among the Jews, in addition to other 
conceptions with regard to the person of the Messiah, that He was an 
intermediate spirit or angel,' is entirely erroneous. It finds no counte- 
nance whatever in the reasoning of the author, and is opposed to the 
whole scope of the epistle, that of showing in detail the inferiority of the 
Old Covenant as compared with the New, and of influencing in a corres- 
ponding manner the conduct of the readers. [XLII }, c.]—The orat orical 
formula of comparison: tocotTo . . . 65%, which recurs vil. 20-22, viii. 
6, x. 25, is found likewise with Philo, but never with Paul.—«peitror] better, 
or‘more excellent, namely, in power, dignity, and exaltedness ; comp. Vil. 
19, 22, viii. 6, ix. 28, x. 34, x16. -35,, 40) Sule 24.—yevduevoc] marks the 
having begun to be in time, whereas ov, ver. 8, expressed the timeless 
eternal existence. Kpeirrov tov ayyéawv did Christ become just at that 
time when, having accomplished the work of redemption, He sat down 
at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The yevéuevoc thus closely 
attaches itself to the édSoev, ver. 38, [XLII d 1.] and is more fully 
explained by the fact that Christ, by virtue of His incarnation, and so 


1That the defective view with regard to bability. Comp. the “Observations on the 
Christ, which saw in Him only an angel, must Epistle to the Hebrews,” contributed by 
have called for rectification, has likewise Riehm from Schneckenburger’s remains, in 
been thought probable by Schneckenburger, the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, H. 3, p. 544 ff. 
who sought further to confirm this pro- 


400 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


long as He dwelt on earth, was made lower than the angels; comp. ii. 7, 
9.—The comparative d:agopoérepor, found in the N. T. only here and 
vili. 6, serves, since even the positive dsadopov would have sufficed for 
the indication of the superiority, for the more emphatic accentuating 
of the signification of the word. The opinion of Hofmann, that the 
comparative is chosen. because the name dyyedoc is in itself an évoya 
didgopov, When the author contrasts the spirits of God with men living in 
the flesh, is quite remote from the idea of the passage—rapd] after a 
comparative is very common in our epistle; ef. iii. 3, ix. 28, xi. 4, xii. 241 
With Paul it never occurs. Similar is izép with the accusative, Heb. iv. 
12; Luke xvi. 8.—évoua] must not, with Beza, Calov, Wittich, Storr, Valck- 
enaer, Zachariae, Heinrichs, be altered into the notion of “dignity.” For 
this évoua never signifies in itself, and its substitution would in our passage, 
in relation to xpeittwv yevduevoc, bring about only a tautology. The name 
of pre-eminence above the angels, which Christ has obtained as an inher- 
itance, is the name viéc, Son of God,—comp. ver. 5 and ver. 1,—while 
the angels by their name are characterized only as messengers and 
servants of God. Contrary to the context, Delitzsch says: the name vidc 
suffices not to express the thought in connection with évova. The supra- 
angelic name, to which the author refers, lies beyond the notionally 
separating and sundering language of men. It is the heavenly total- 
name of the Exalted One, His W157 OY, nomen explicitum, which in this 
world has entered into no human heart, and can be uttered by no human 
tongue, the dvoua 6 ovdei¢ oidev ei jy avtéc, Rev. xix. 12. The following 
words of Scripture are, he supposes, only upward pointing signs, which 
call forth in us some foreboding as to how glorious He is. But this is 
opposed to the connection. For even though it be true, as advanced by 
Delitzsch in support of his view, that in the following O. T. passages there 
occur also, in addition to vidéc, the wider appellations @ed¢ and es yet, 
onthe other hand, not merely év vid, ver. 1, as likewise ver. 5 with its 
proof-giving ydp, but also the antithesis mpocg piv Tove ayyéAove and mpdc¢ dé 
Tov vidv, VV. 7, 8, shows that vide is the main conception, to which the 
words of address: 6 6ed¢ and xpse, vy. 8, 10, stand in the relation of 
subordination, inasmuch as they are already contained in this very idea 
of Son.—The perfect kexAypovédunxev, however, not the aorist ExAnpovounoer, 
is employed by the author; because Christ did not first obtain this name 
at the time of the kafifew & de&a THe weyad., ver. 3, but had already as 
pre-existing Logos obtained it as an abiding portion and_ possession. 
[XLII d 2.] We have not, in connection with kexAnpovdunxev, to think 
“quite in general of the O. T. time, in which the future Messiah received 
in the Word of God the name of Son,” as is asserted by Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
des Hebraerbr. p. 274), whose statement is endorsed by E. Woerner2 For 
this view is contradicted by the dv ob Kai éroincev Tove aldvac, ver. 2, in its 


1Comp. also Luke iii. 13; 3 Esdr. iy. 35; Bynoav; Herod. vii. 103: Winer, p. 225, [E. T. 2401. 
Thuceyd. i. 23: nAiov re éxAetWers, ai TUKVOTEpPAat 2 Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebrder, Lud 
Tapa Ta €x TOU mply Xpovov mynmovevdumeva suveE- wigsb. 1876. 


CHAP, I. 5. 401 


relation to év vie, ver. 1, according to which Christ already existed as the 
Son before all time. The declarations of ver. 5, which Riehm has urged 
in favor of the construction put by him on our passage, have only the 
object of affording vouchers for a condition of things already existing.— 
The difficulty raised, for the rest, that the name of Son is here insisted on 
as a distinguishing characteristic of Christ, while, nevertheless, in single 
passages of the O. T.,! angels too are called sons of God, is already dis- 
posed of by the reflection that this is not the characteristic name for the 
angels as such. There is no need, therefore, of the justification of the 
author made by Bleek, that this writer, since he was not at home in the 
Hebrew text of the O. T., but only in the Alexandrine version thereof, 
which latter freely renders the majority of those passages by dyyeAo tov 
cov, may easily have overlooked, or perhaps have otherwise interpreted, 
those passages in which the literal translation is found in the LXX. (Ps. 
xxix. 1, Ixxxix. 7 [Gen. vi. 2, 4?]). 

Vy. 5-14 follow the scriptural proof for ver. 4, and that in such form 
that in the first place, ver. 5, the diagopérepov rap’ avtov¢ KeKAnpovdunkev 
évoua is confirmed, and then, vv. 6-14, the xpeitrov yevduevoc Tov ayyéAwr. 

Ver. 5. Tive yap eixév rote tov ayyéAwv] For to which of the angels has He 
ever said, i. e. to none of the angels has He ever said—The position of the 
words serves to put a strong accentuation at the same time upon tiv and 
upon tov ayyéAov.—The subject in eizev is 6 @e6c¢, as is evident alike from 
the passage itself which is cited, and from our context; inasmuch as both 
in that which precedes (vv. 1-4) 6 @ed¢ was expressly mentioned as the 
subject of the main proposition, ant in that which follows (ver. 6) the 
subject of eioayayy tiv xpwréroxov can only be God.—zoré] is particle of 
time, at any time, unquam. Wrongly taken by Ch. F. Schmid, Kuinoel, 
and others as a mere strengthening particle, in the sense of the German 
doch or the Latin tandem. For then zoré must have been placed immedi- 
ately after tav.—The citation vidc ...ce is from Ps. ii. 7, in verbal 
accordance with the LXX. In its historic sense the psalm relates to an 
Israelite king (probably Solomon), who, just now solemnly anointed in 
Zion as theocratic king, in the lofty feeling of his unity with Jehovah, 
warns the-subjugated nations, who are meditating revolt and defection, of 
the fruitlessness of their undertaking. The author, however, sees Christ 
in the person addressed, even as a referring of this psalm to the Messiah 
was quite usual among the Jews of that period, and in the N. T. the 
Messianic interpretation thereof is further met with, besides ver. 5, in 
Acts xili. 83.—vide ov] my Son, i.e. in the sense of the psalm, the king of 
my theocracy, my representative, the object of my fatherly love and 
protection. The author, on the other hand, takes vide in the sense 
unfolded, vv. 2, 3.—éya ofepov yeyévvnxd oe] I have this day begotten thee, 
i.e. in the historic sense of the original. I have, by the anointing accom- 
plished this day, installed thee as the theocratic prince. In the sense of 
the author, yeyévvy7«a denotes the fact of having become the Son. The 


1 Job i. 6, ii. 1. xxxviii. 7; Gen. vi. 2,4; Ps. xxix. 1, lxxxix. 7; Dan. iii. 26. 


26 


402 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


question is now, how he conceived of the c#uepov. [XLII d 3.] Itis 
referred either to the moment in which Christ was manifested to be the 
Son of God, i.e. to the moment of the Resurrection or the Ascension,! or to 
the moment of the Incarnation,’ or, finally, to the period before the crea- 
tion of the world, thus to eternity. That the author? attached no definite 
notion to the ojuepov, as being without significance for his demonstration, 
is an unexegetical supposition. Exclusively correct, because alone in 
harmony with the context, is the referring of the ojyepov to eternity; since, 
according to ver. 2,God created the world by Christ as the Son, thus Christ 
must already have existed as Son before the foundation of the world. 
With Philo, too, occurs the same interpretation of ojuepov, as signifying 
eternity.°—xai raa] and further, serves, as frequently (e.g. ii. 13, x. 30; 
Rom. xv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. iii. 20; Philo, ed. Mangey, I. p. 88, 490, al.), for the 
introduction of a new passage of Scripture. The kai wéaw «.7.2. is not, 
however, to be taken as an assertory declaration, so that merely eizev 
would have to be supplied (in accordance with which Lachmann punctu- 
ates); but the question is continued in such wise that the proposition is 
to be completed by kai (rive eitév rote tov ayyéAwv) radv.—This second 
citation is derived from 2 Sam. vii. 14, in verbal accordance with the LXX. 
Comp. also 1 Chron. xvii. (xviii.) 18. @i7@ and airéc refer in the historic 
sense to Solomon. To David, who designs building a temple to Jehovah, 
the divine direction comes by Nathan to desist from his purpose. Not 
David, but his seed, who shall ascend the throne after him, is to build a 
temple to Jehovah ; to him will Jehovah for ever establish the throne of 
his kingdom; to him will Jehovah be a father, and he shall be to Him a 
son, and, if he transgress, Jehovah will chasten him with the rod of men 
and with the stripes of the children of men. Even this latter addition 
(which, for the rest, is not found in the parallel passage, 1 Chron. xvii. 
(xvili.) 13) makes it impossible to refer the words to the Messiah, as, 
moreover, the reference to Solomon is rendered certain even from the O. 
T. itself by the following passages: 1 Kings v. 19 (5), viii. 17 ff.; 2 Chron. 
vi. 9,10; as also 1 Chron. xxii. (xxiii.) 9 ff., xxviii. (xxix.) 2 fi —eiva etc | 
Formed after thé Hebrew 2 they Comp. viii. 10, al. 

Ver. 6. [XLII d4.] "Ora, with the conjunctive aorist, takes the place of the 
Latin futurum exactum. See Winer, p.289[E.T.308]. "Orav eicayayy can- 


lHilary, in Psalmum ; Ambrose, de Saeram. decret. Nicen. Synod. 213; Basil, contra Eunom. 


3.1; Calvin, Cameron, Grotius, Schlichting, 
Limborch, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Calmet, 
Peirce, Storr, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier; 
comp. Delitzseh, who would have the words 
interpreted of “the entrance of the Son into 
the kingly life of supra-terrestrial glory in 
God, of which the resurrection is the initial 
point.” 

2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eusebius, in 
Psalmum, alii; Piseator, Béhme, Kuinoel, 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 123 f. of the 2d ed.; 
Woerner. 

Origen in Joh, t. i. c. 32; hihatinatae de 


2. 24; Augustine, in Psalmum [Arnobius of 
Gaul, in Psalmum]; Primasius, Theophylact, 
Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, 
Calov, Wittich, Braun, Carpzoyv, Bleek [but 
with wavering; more decidedly in the 
lectures edited by Windrath, Der Hebrderbr., 
erklirt von Dr. Fr. Bleek, Elberf. 1868], Stein, 
Alford, Kurtz, and the majority. 

4As Bleek I., de Wette, and Riehm (xehr- 
begr. des Hebrderbr. p. 287 f.) deem possible. 

5Comp. De Profugis, p. 458 E (with Mangey, 
I. p. 554): onpepov 8 
advefityTos aiwy’ mynvav yap Kal eviauT@r Kai 


€oTiv 0 amépatos Kat 


CHAP. I. 6. 403 


not consequently mean, as was still assumed by Bleek I., and recently by 
Reuss :' “ when He brings in,” but only: “when He shall have brought 
in.” To take wadcv, however,’ as ver. 5, i.e. merely as the formula for 
linking on a new citation, is forbidden by the position of the words. It 
must then have been written: wddw 0é, orav cioaydyp . . . Aéyer. The 
possibility of an inversion of the wad is defended, it is true, by Bleek, 
after the precedent of Carpzoy, on the authority of two passages in Philo 
(Legg. Allegor. iii. p. 66; ed. Mangey, p. 93). But neither of these presents 
a case analogous to the one before us, nor does an inversion of the waa 
at all take place in them. For in both zdw has the signification in turn, 
or on the other hand, inasmuch as in the former two classes of persons (6 
dé voov tov idiov arodeizwov and 6 dé rad axodipadoKwy Hedy) in the latter two 
classes of défac or opinions (7 pév tov émt pépouc, tov yevryrov Kai OvyTov 
irodurovoa and 7 dé TaAw Hedv arodoKiudgovoa), are compared together by 
way of contrast, in such wise that in both 74% only serves for bringing 
the dé into stronger relief, and in both has occupied its legitimate place. 
By virtue of its position, 7@4cv, in our passage, can be construed only 
with eicoayayy, in such wise that a bringing again of the First-born into 
the world, which is an event still belonging to the future, is spoken of. 
In the former member of ver. 6 the reference can accordingly be neither 
to the time of the Incarnation of the Son;* nor to the time of the Resur- 
rection and Exaltation to heaven ;* nor® to a moment yet preceding the 
Incarnation of Christ, in which the Father had, by a solemn act as it were, 
conducted forth and presented the Son to the beings created by Him, as 
the First-born, as their Creator and Ruler, who was to uphold and guide 
all things,6—which in any case would be an entirely singular thought in 
the N. T..—but simply and alone to the coming again of Christ to judg- 
ment, and the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom.’ The objection 
brought by Bleek and Ebrard against this interpretation of the former 
member, required as it is by the exigencies of the grammar, viz. that the 
discourse could not turn on the bringing again of the First-born into the 
world, unless an earlier bringing in of the same into the world, or at least 


auvodws xpdvwv meptodo. Sdymata avOpumwv 
€igiy apiOuov exteTimyKoTwY, To 8 aweudés 
OvoLa al@vos n onMEpor. 

1Comp. Reuss, L’épitre aux Hébreux. Essai 
dune traduction accompagnée d'un commentaire 
(Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, vol. v. 4e, 5e, 
et 6e livraison, Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 199). 

2 With the Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, 
Jac. Cappellus, Sehlichting, Grotius, Lim- 
borch, Hammond, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, 
Cramer, Valckenaer, Schulz, Kuinoel, Bleek, 
Stengel, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Reuss, alii. 

3Chrysostom, Primasius, Calvin, Owen, 
Caloy, Bengel, Storr, Kuinoel [Stuart: or be- 
ginning of His ministry], Bleek IT. alii. 

4Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Wittich, 
Braun, Wetstein, Rambach, Peirce, Whitby, 
and others 


5 As Bleek I. supposed. 

6In like manner Reuss, l. c. p. 201: “Il est 
plus naturel de songer au moment, ot le 
monde nouvellement créé était sommé de 
reconnaitre le Fils comme créateur. A ce 
moment, les anges seuls étaient les étres 
formant pour ainsi dire l’Eglise du Verbe 
(comme xii. 22), et qui pouvaient recevoir 
Vordre de Dieu d’adorer le Fils.” 

7So, rightly, Gregory Nyssen, contra Eunom. 
Orat. iii. p. 541; Cornelius a Lapide, Cameron 
[Mede: for the inauguration of His millennial 
kingdom], Gerhard, Calmet, Camerarius, 
Estius, Gomar, B6éhme, de Wette, Tholuck, 
Bisping, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 172, 2d 
ed.), Delitzseh, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrd- 
erbr. p. 306, 617), Alford, Conybeare, Maier, 
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Woerner. 


404 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


a former being of the Son év rH olxovuévy had been explicitly spoken of, is 
invalidated by vv. 1, 8, where certainly the discourse was already of the 
historic appearing of the Son on earth, and thus of a first bringing in of 
the same into the world. The additional objection of Bleek, however, 
that the author would hardly have limited the scope of a divine summons 
to the angels to do homage to the First-born to a time even in his day 
future, is set aside by the consideration that, according to ii. 9, Christ was 
during His earthly life humbled to a condition beneath the angels, and 
only the Parousia itself is the epoch at which His majesty will be unfolded 
in full glory.—7év xpwréroxov| in the N. T. only here without more precisely 
defining addition; comp, however, Ps. Ixxxix. 28 (27). That the expres- 
sion must not be regarded as equivalent to jovoyevic,! is self-evident. But 
neither is it identical with the tpwréroxog maoye Kticewe, Col. i. 15, in such 
wise that the temporal priority of Christ, as the eternal Logos, over all 
creatures, and the notion of His precedence over all creatures, necessarily 
resulting therefrom, should be contained in the word. For this interpre- 
tation is excluded by the absoluteness of the expression in our passage. 
Rather is Christ called the First-born with respect to Christians, who are 
His brethren (ii. 11 f.), and therefore likewise vioi of God (ii. 10). Comp. 
also Rom. viii. 29.—As, for the rest, the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews terms Christ the First-born Son of God; so does Philo also term 
the Logos the First-born Son.*—7 oixovyévy] the world, not in the widest 
sense (equivalent to oi aidvec, Bleek; or to 7 oixovpévn 7 wéAAovoa, (BOhme) ; 
but, since the former member has reference to the Parousia, the habitable 
earth.—Aéyer] sc. 6 Oedc, not 74 ypaey (Grotius, Clericus, Bohme, and others) 
The present is chosen, because the utterance of God, which shall infallibly 
be made in the future, stands already noted down in the Scripture ——The 
citation is not derived from Ps. xevii. 7, but from Déut. xxxii. 43. For, in 
the former passage, the LX X. have a reading divergent from that of our 
text, in thé words: kai tpooxvvfcate avt@ ravtec [oi] dyyedor avtov, Whereas in 
the Codex, Vaticanus of Deut. xxxii. 43, the words occur asin our text; while 
the «aé, taken up by the author into his citation, manifestly points—seeing 
that it is without any importance for his reasoning—to the verbatim repro- 
duction of an O. T. utterance. Now, it is true our author follows in other 
cases a form of the Sept. text which bears affinity less to that contained 
in the Codex Vaticanus than to that in the Codex Alexandrinus, and the 
latter displays the variation from the Cod. Vat. Deut. xxxii. 43, in so far 
as viot eov is found therein in place of ayyeAor beov. But the Song of 
Moses, of which Deut. xxxii. 43 forms the conclusion, is communicated 
anew, in many mss. of the LXX., and so also in the Codex Alexandrinus, 


1As is done by Primasius, Oecumenius (7 
$€ mpwrdtoxov ovK emi Sevtépov Ayer AAA’ Emi 
évos Kal ovov Tov yevynbevTos Ex TOV TaTpds), 
Clarius, and even now by Stengel. 

2Bleek, Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl. 
to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z., No. 29, p. 662; 
Riehm, Lehrbegy. des Hebrderbr. p. 292 f.; 


Kurtz, Ewald, and others. 

3Comp. de Agricultura, p. 195 B (ed. Mangey, 
I. p. 308): tov opGov avTod Adyov, mpwToyovov 
De Confus. Ling. p. 329 (ed. Mang. I. p. 
415): todrov wév yap mpeoBitatov vioy o TeV 
OvTwy avererAe Tatyp, dv ETEPpwWOL mpwTdyovoV 
wvonacer, al. 


viov. 


CHAP:-T. ¥: 405 


in a second recension, having its place after the Psalms; and in this 
second recension the Codex Alexandrinus, too, reads adyyedot Geov, only 
the article of has been interpolated between rdvrec and ayyedo. It is 
probable, therefore, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did 
not take the citation direct from Deut. xxxii. 48, but mediately, 7. e. from 
that second recension of the hymn.—It remains to be said that the words 
of the citation are wanting in the Hebrew; they are found only in the 
LX X.—xzpockvveiv] with the dative only in the case of later classic authors, 
whereas the earlier combine the accusative with this verb.!. The N. T. has 
both constructions, as besides them the Hebraizing turns tpockvveiv évoruov, 
or éurpoofév two, OY Tov Toddv Twoc. See the Lexicons.—air}] That this 
pronoun of the third person was to be referred to the Messiah naturally 
suggested itself, inasmuch as Jehovah is the subject speaking immediately 
before in the Song. [XLII e.] 

Vv. 7-12. Contrastful comparison of a declaration of Scripture charac- 
terizing the angels, and two declarations characterizing the Son. [On Vy. 
7-14, see Note XLIII., pages 416-420. ] 

Ver. 7. [XLIII a.] Upéc¢] with regard to,as Luke xx.19; Acts xii. 21; 
Rom. x. 21, and frequently.~—uév] corresponds to the dé of ver. 8, 
thus places ver. 7 in express opposition to ver. 8 [XLIII 6.J— 
aéyec] namely, God, in the Scripture-—The citation is from Ps. civ. 4, 
according to the LXX. (Cod. Alex., whereas Cod. Vatican. has zip ¢Aéyov 
instead of rupd¢ ¢Adya). The psalm praises Jehovah as the Creator and Sus- 
tainer of alli nature. In the Hebrew the words cited read: rIs79 nmyy, 
oi we PNW Nin and, having respect to their connection with what 
precedes and that which follows, no doubt can obtain on the point 
that they are to be rendered,—what is objected thereto by Hofmann 
(Schriftbew. I. p. 825 f., 2 Aufl.), Delitzsch, and Alford is untenable,—‘ God 

‘makes winds His messengers, and flames of fire (lightnings) His servants,” 
in such wise that the thought is expressed: as the whole of nature, so are 
also winds and lightnings servants of God the Lord.3 Otherwise have the 
LXX. apprehended the sense of the words, as is shown by the addition 
of the article before ayyéAove and Ae:rovpyoic, and they are followed by our 
author. [So the Targum also.] They have taken rot¢ ayyédove airov and 
Tove Aeitoupyove avTov as the objects, tvebuara and svpd¢ dAdya, on the other 
hand, as the predicates to roy, thus have found the meaning of the 
words: “He makes His angels winds, and His servants a flame of fire.” 
If we now observe the scope of the thought of those declarations of 
Scripture concerning the Son which follow, vv. 8-12, placed as they are in 
antithetical relation to the one before us, it is evident that the author 
must haye discovered the inferiority of the angels compared with the Son, 
as attested in Scripture, in a twofold respect—(1) that the angels are ser- 


1Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 463; Bern- 3Comp., as to the thought, Xenophon, 
hardy, Syntax, p. 118, 266. Memorabilia, iv. 3. 14, where quite similariy 

2Comp. Matthiae, p. 1181; Winer, p. 378 [E. lightning and winds (xepavyds and aveuor) are 
T. 405]. called umnpérat Tay Bear. 


406 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


vants, whereas the Son is ruler; (2) that the angels are mutable and per- 
ishable, whereas the Son abides the same for ever.—The conception of such 
a subjection on the part of the angels, that they must submit even to be 
changed into elements, is, Moreover, not uncommon among the Rabbins.! 
—rveiyata| not: spirits (Luther, Erasmus, Paraphrase ; Clarius, Piscator, 
Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Brochmann, Bengel, Bohme), but : winds—erroupyoic] 
only another name for ayyéove. 

Vv. 8, 9derived from Ps. xlv. 7,8 (6,7). The psalm is an epithalamium, 
a wedding-song. But even by Rabbins like Aben Esra, Kimchi, and 
others, it is Messianically interpreted—Ver. 8. [XLII ¢.] The nomina- 
tive 6 @e6c is taken by our author in the sense of the vocative (comp. e.g. 
Col. iii. 18 ff.; Luke viii. 54; Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 182]; Kiihner, II. p. 
155), thus as an apostrophe to the Messiah.? In the Hebrew words: J¥02 
WwW) py Dos DIN is not vocative, but to be translated either after the 
analogy of Ley. xxvi. 42 (21py? SYS, 151) I will remember my 
Jacob’s-covenant, 7. e. the covenant: made by me with Jacob), with Bleek, 
de Wette, and Kurtz: “ thy throne of God,” 7. e. “ thy divine throne; ” or, 
with Ewald (ad loc. and Gramm. 3 547): “thy throne is (throne) of God or 
divine.” The Greek 6 @e6c, too, it has been thought by Grimm (Theol. 
Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 662) and 
Ewald (das Sendschr. an d. Hebr. p. 55), ought not to be explained 
in the sense of a vocative. According to Grimm, the words are to 
be taken in the acceptation: “Thy throne, 7. e. the foundation of Thy 
throne, is God;” according to Ewald, they say that “the throne of the 
Messiah for everlasting ages is God Himself, so that where He reigns, there 
God Himself is virtually ever present.” But the argument urged by 
Grimm in favor of this construction—that, since Philo, as frequently also 
the Christian Alexandrians, makes a sharp distinction between 6 ded¢ (with 
the article) as'a designation of ,God, and 6eé¢ (without an article) as 
designation of the Logos, it is hardly to be regarded as probable that a 
man of Alexandrian culture, like our author, would have called Christ as 
to His divine nature 6 @e6c-—would have had weight only if that designation, 
in place of being met with in a citation, had occurred in our author’s own 
discourse.—ei¢ Tov aidva tov ai@voc] se. éotiv. So LXX., Cod. Alex.; Cod. 
Vatican. : The same (merely Hellenistic) formula, 
strengthening the simple ei¢ rdv aidva (v. 6, and often), also Tob. vi. 18; Ps. 
Ixxxiii. 18, al. In independent discourse the author uses in place thereof 


ei¢ ala@va ai@voc. 


1Comp. e. g. Shemoth rabba, sec. 25, fol. 123. 2 Against the peculiar opinion of Hofmann 


8: “aliquando ipsos (angelos) facit ventos, q. 
i. qui facis angelos tuos ventos, aliquando 
ignem, q. d. ministros tuos flammam ignis.” 
Jalkut Simeoni, part Il. fol. 11. 3: “Angelus 
dixit ad Manoah: nescio ad cujus imaginem 
ego factus sim; nam Deus singulis horis nos 
immutat; curergo nomen meum interrogas? 
Nonnunquam facit nos ignem, alias venfum, 
interdum viros, alias denique angelos.” See 
in general, Schéttgen and Wetstein ad loc. 


(Schriftbew. I. p. 168 f., 2 Aufi.), that, vv. 8, 9, it 
is not Christ whois addressed; that, on the 
contrary, the author of the epistle leaves it to 
the reader “to fake the words: 6 @povos gov 0 
@eds, as an address to Jehovah, or with a right 
understanding of the connection 80) 
DON as an address to the king, the anointed 
of Jehovah,” see Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebra- 
erbr. p. 286, Remark, 


CHAP. I. 8-9. 407 


ele rd dinvexéc. Comp. vil. 3, x. 1, xii. 14.—paBdog etObrytoc] a sceptre of 
uprightness, i.e. of righteousness. «vite, in the N. T. only here; but 
comp. LXX. Ps. ix. 9, xvii. 5, xevi. 10, xeviii. 9. Comp. also Aeschylus, 
Persae, ver. 726 f. (according to the division in Hartung’s edition, Leipzig 
1853) : 

év’ dvdp’ araone ’Acidog unhotpépov 

Tayelv, ExovTa OKAMTpOV EVvVOVYTHpPLOY, 


Ver. 9. "Hyarnoac dixasooivyy «.7.A.] Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst 
wrong. In the Hebrew the corresponding verbs have a present significa- 
tion: thou lovest justice and hatest wrong. Our author, however, refers 
the aorists of the LXX. to the historic life of the Son of God upon earth. 
—0dia tovto] therefore, i.e. as a reward for the ayarav dixavocbvyy Kai puceiv 
avouiav. Comp. 66, Phil. ii. 9. Erroneously Augustine (én Ps.), Thomas 
Aquinas, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Brochmann, Sch6ttgen, and others: for this 
cause, that thou mightest love righteousness, etc.—éypicév ce, 6 Oedc, 6 Oedg 
cov éAaov x.7.A.] [XLII d.] O God, Thy God hath Thee anointed with oil of 
gladness above Thy companions. Here, too, the author takes 6 éed¢ as an 
apostrophe,! whereas in the Hebrew ® TON is the subject to }]W), and is 
taken up again into the discourse, and more nearly defined by TTR. 
The anointing with the oil of joy in the psalm is a figurative designation 
of the blessing and abundance given by God. Our author, however, 
understands it of the anointing to be king, as a figure of the divine glory 
with which the Son, after His life upon earth and His exaltation to heaven, 
has been crowned. Comp. also Acts iv. 27, ii. 36. Thesense of the author 
is departed from when the Fathers and earlier expositors interpret the 
expression of the anointing of the Son with the Holy Ghost.—On the 
double accusative combined with éypicev (Rev. iii. 18), see Winer, p. 212 
[E. T. 226]. As an analogon, comp. also Aristophanes, Acharn. 114: iva 
* wh oe Bayo Bauua Lapdmaxdv.—llapa rove petrdyxove cov] [XLIII e.] refers in 
the original to the contemporary kings, the rulers of other lands. But 
what our author understood by it in the application is obscure. Kuinoel, 
Ebrard, Delitasch, and Moll suppose the author, like the Psalmist, to 
intend the other kings; Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 306), all earthly 
and heavenly princes; Wittich, Braun, Cramer, the kings, high priests, 
and prophets of the O. T., inasmuch as they were anointed as types of 
Christ; Klee, all the creatures; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Bengel, and Bisping, men in general; Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, 
Piscator, Schlichting, Maier, Kurtz, the Christians specially [Owen hesi- 
tates between all believers and prophets and apostles]; Bleek, Olshausen, 
Alford, and Ewald finally, after the precedent of Peirce and others, the 
angels, “as beings which do not indeed appear as sitting at the right hand 
of God, but yet as existing in immediate proximity to the divine throne.” 
The last supposition is the most probable. It is true de Wette regards it 


10n account of ver. 8 this construction is Delitzsch also leaves the choice open), that 
more natural than the supposition of Grimm, we have to explain in accordance with the 
le. p. 602; Alford, and Ewald (to which Hebrew: “God, even Thy God.” 


408 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


as the least conceivable, because the author has “ placed the angels in no 

other position than deeply below Christ,” and Ebrard even thinks the. 
author must have been “beside himself” if he had referred the words to 
the angels. But (1) it is a question throughout the whole section of a 
comparison of Christ with the angels ; the renewed indication of this point 
of comparison also in yer. 9 cannot therefore in itself be found unsuitable. 
(2) If shortly before (ver. 7) the angels are placed deeply below Christ, so 

it will be admitted their inferiority is likewise expressly intimated by 

means of rapé in our passage. (3) The angels were, in the conception of 

the author, the next in rank after Christ; for they are exalted above men. 

To whom, therefore, could the author more fittingly apply the designation 

uéroyo than precisely to them? The objection of Delitzsch, finally, that 

after all angels are not anointed ones, would be of weight only if the 

author were obliged of necessity to think of the yéroyor too as anointed ; 

he finds, on the contrary, in the anointing only of the Son, a fact ex- 

pressed, from which the exaltedness of the same above His companions, 

i.e. of those who of all others stand nearest to Him in dignity, is neces- 

sarily deduced. For zapé is used here not in the sense of the quantity 

arising from the notion of comparison, but denotes the part accruing to 

one to the exclusion of others. 

Vv. 10-12. A second citation—co-ordinate with the Scripture testimony 
adduced, vv. 8, 9—derived from Ps. cii. 26-28 (25-27) according to the 
LXX. [XLII f.] The psalm is a lamentation, belonging probably to 
the first century after the Captivity. The words of address refer in the 
original to God. The author, however, mainly indeed misled? by the 
xopte in the LXX., which was the ordinary appellation of Christ in apos- 
tolic time, takes tleé utterance as an address to Chiist, the Son of God. 
This interpretation must the more have appeared to him unquestionable, 
inasmuch as -the -scope of the utterance fully harmonized with his own 
conception, of the Son of God as the premundane Logos. Comp. vv. 2, 3. 
When, for the rest, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 169 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes that 
the author found no address whatever to Christ designed in the xipie of 
the psalm, but only meant to say in the words of Scripture what was true 
of Jesus according to his own belief and that presupposed in the readers, 
this is a freak of fancy without anything to justify it, and even opposed to 
the context (comp. zpac¢ dé rdv vidv, (ver. 8). For the author can have been 
concerned only about this very object of proving the higher attestation 


1According to Delitzsch, indeed, it would shows so deep an insight into the innermost 
be “a poor look-out” if that were “true.” core of the O. T.,” that is a prejudiced verdict, 
But when, following in Hofmann’s steps, he arising from subjectivity and dogmatic par- 
objects against it that “we may already see tiality, to the establishing of which it would 
from viii. 8 ff., xii. 6 ff., that the author is far have been necessary first of all to bring for- 
from everywhere understanding Christ to be ward the proof that the author of the Epistle 
intended by the O. T. xvptos,’’ these passages to the Hebrews in reality possessed an accu- 
naturally prove nothing, since the usual rate knowledge not only of the Greek text of 
practice is never the constant and invariable the LXX., but also of the original text of the 
practice. When Delitzsch further adds: ©. T.,—a proof which even Delitasch has not 
‘such perversity originating in ignorance is been able to afford. 
not to be laid to the charge of an author who 


CHAP. 1- 10-12. 409 


given to his assertion by the Scriptures.—Ka/] not a constituent part of the 
citation, but a brief formula of connecting, when a further passage of Scrip- 
ture is linked to that which precedes, comp. Acts i. 20.—oid kar’ apyac, kipre, 
Thy yay éeuediocac] LX X.Cod. Alex.: kar’ apydc ob, xipie, THY yav MepwEdincac ; 
Cod. Vatie. : car’ apyac THY yqv ob, Kbpie, EBeuediwoac. It is probable the author 
changed the position of the words in order to make oi the more emphatic. 
—xar’ apyac] in the beginning. With the LXX. elsewhere only Ps. cxix. 152, 
instead of the more usual év apyq Or az’ apyjc, but frequently met with in 
Philo and the classics (see Raphel, Wetstein, and Munthe ad loc.). In the 
Hebrew stands the more general D199, “formerly,” or “of old.” 

Ver. 11. Avro] refers back not to earth and heaven, ver. 10, taken 
together (Kuinoel, Stuart, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Kurtz), but, as is evident 
from the following mwd»rec, and in particular from éAigec, ver. 12, 
only to of ovpavoi.—arodoivta] shall perish. Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 
6, lxv. 17; 2 Pet. ui. 18; Rev. xx. 11, xxi. 1—od d2 diapéverc] but 
Thou abidest for evermore (throughout all duration of time, da). On 
account of the environment of futures, and because the future is used 
here in the Hebrew, Bleek, after the example of Luther, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Peirce, Bengel, Wetstein, alii, accentuates: diayeveic. So also the 
Vulgate (permanebis). Hardly in the sense of the author. For, since he 
employed only the LX X., not the Hebrew original, he surely took od d 
dia. as a parallel member to od dé 6 airo¢ ei, ver. 12, consequently also con- 
strued the former as a present.—o¢ indtiov radawijoovra] will grow old like a 
garment, which by long use is worn out and laid aside, to be replaced by a 
new and better one. Comp. Isa. 1. 9, li. 6; Ecclus. xiv. 17. 

Ver. 12. Kai doet repu3draov siete aitod¢ Kai aAAayjoovta] and as a cloak 
(something flung about one) wilt Thou roll them up, and they shall become 
changed. Tn the original: As the vesture dost Thou change them, and they 
are changed. This sense of the original is rendered by the LXX. accord- 
ing to the reading of the Cod. Vat.: kai doei repiBdAauv aAAdzere abtove Kab 
aidayhoovra; Whereas the Cod. Alex. presents é4ifeve; and this is also most 
probably the reading followed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
in our passage.—oi« éxAeipovo] will know no end. 

Ver. 13. Further citation from Ps. cx. 1, according to the LXX. The 
psalm was looked upon universally in the time of Christ (comp. Matt. xxii. 
44 ff.; Mark xii. 35 ff; Luke xx. 41 ff), and also in later times by many 
Rabbins (see Wetstein on Matt. xxii. 44), as a prophecy relating to the 
Messiah; inasmuch as on the ground of the superscription WI David 
himself was regarded as the author of it, and in connection with this view 
the reference to the Messiah was easily proved on the ground of the words 
at the beginning: “‘to my Lord speaketh Jehovah,” according to which 
David acknowledges, in addition to his God, also a Lord over him. The 
superscription 1, nevertheless, indicates not the writer, but the subject 
of the psalm. It is in its historic sense an oracle pronounced to David, 
when the latter was preparing for war against his powerful foes. See 
Ewald on the Psalm.—-;*: ‘] 5é in the third place, as often occurs 


410 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


after prepositional combinations.'—The sitting at the right hand, figure 
of the highest honor and dominion, see on ver, 3.—izorédiov trav roddv cov] 
the footstool of Thy feet. There lies in the expression an allusion to the 
custom of the victor of placing his foot upon the neck of the vanquished, 
in token of the complete subjection of the latter; comp. Josh. x. 24— 
ixoréduov] first used in the Greek of a later age.’ 

Ver. 14. Confirmation of the mpdc¢ tiva dé Trav ayyéAwy eipnkév rote, Show- 
ing the inconceivableness of such a thing by a reference to the nature of 
the angels, and with this the termination of the present train of thought.— 
The emphasis rests upon ravreg and Aectovpycxa: are not all (alike, 
whether they belong to a lower or higher class of angels) ministering 
spirits [spirits in waiting]? «veiwara here in a different sense from ver. 
7.—ei¢ dvaxoviav] XLII g.] for service, sc. which they render to God, not 
to the men who shall inherit the cwrypia; otherwise, in place of 61a Tove 
péhaovrac, the dative toig uéAAovor KAnpovopeiv owrnpiav (1 Cor. xvi. 15) or the 
genitive tov peAAdvtwy x.7.A. Would have been placed.—The participle 
present arooteAAbmeva brings out the permanent, habitual character of 
the action expressed by the verb.—d:a rove x.7.2.] for the sake of those who 
shall inherit (everlasting) salvation (this is intended by corypiar, although 
without the article, see Winer, p. 114 [E. T. 120]; not: deliverance from 
peril, as Michaelis, Schleusner, BOhme, Kuinoel assume), 7. e. in order, by 
means of the offices in which they are employed by God, to bring it in for 
the same. 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLI. Vv. 1-3. 


e 

(a) The Epistle to the Hebrews differs from the Pauline Epistles at its begin- 
ning, not merely in the fact that the name of the author is not given, but also in 
two other points which are connected with this omission. There is no salutation— 
“race and peace” to the readers,—and, also, no introductory passage of a general 
character. On the other hand, the writer proceeds at once to state the subject on 
which he proposes to discourse, in vv. 1-8, and then enters immediately upon his 
extended argument. The subject of the Epistle is: The superiority of the N.T. 
system or revelation to the O. T. system or revelation. This subject, however, is 
not presented in the form of a definite proposition, such as might be found at the 
beginning of a treatise or a philosophical thesis, but, after the manner of Paul’s 
Epistles, in the form which is characteristic of a letter addressed to a church for 
the final purpose of admonition and exhortation. The Epistle is rhetorical, and 
artistically arranged, in a degree quite beyond the ordinary letters of Paul, but it 
nowhere loses the character of a letter, or assumes that of a rhetorical or oratorical 
discourse. 

(b) In the statement of the subject or proposition to be proved, the writer sets 
forth the superiority of the N. T. to the O. T. revelation, primarily, by describing 
it as év vi, and secondarily (in connection with this fact), as being,—not, like the 


1Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 378 f.; Hartung, I. p. 397; Winer, p. 519, [E. T. 558}. 
Partikellehre, I. p.190 f.; Ellendt, Lewic. Soph. 2Comp. Sturz, de dial, Alex. et Maced. p. 199. 


NOTES. 411 


D.T. system, revealed toAvuspo¢ Kai rodutpérw¢, but—complete and full. The 
primary emphasis on the thought suggested by év vi of ver. 2 is shown by the 
fact, that the whole of the following argument is the setting forth of Christ as 
superior to the agents employed for introducing and carrying forward the O. T. 
system; and the secondary emphasis on the other point is made clear by many 
hints and statements in the course of the argument, as well as by the prominent 
position given to the two adverbs at the opening of the first verse. In this con- 
nection, it may be noticed that the words év Toic xpoo#tarc—though, in the position 
given them in the arrangement and statement of vy. 1, 2, they are codrdinate (in 
contrast) with év vig—are, in relation to the substance of thought filling the Epistle, 
scarcely more than mere descriptive words characterizing the O. T. revelation. 
The contrasts of the Epistle are not between Christ and the prophets, but first, be- 
tween Christ and the angels and Moses, and secondly, between Christ and the O. T. 
High-priests. The angels and Moses are the instrumental agents who introduce 
the old system; the High priests, the instrumental agents who carry it forward. 
The prophets are not spoken of as connected with either office. Indeed the word 
prophet is not used elsewhere in the Epistle, except in the enumeration of the 
heroes of faith in xi. 32, “Samuel and the prophets.” The special emphasis on 
roAvu. kat ToAvrp. in the arrangement of words in ver. 1 is due to the demands of 
the thought in that verse, rather than of the thought in the epistle. As related to 
the thought of the epistle, the rendering of R. V. brings out the emphasis cor- 
rectly :—“God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by 
divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto 
us in His Son,” or, as in the marg., a Son. 

(c) With respect to the words of ver. 1, the following points may be noticed : 
1. God is evidently declared to be the author of the two revelations.—2. The verb 
ja2«iv has in these verses, and so, to a considerable extent, throughout the epistle, 
a certain technical or peculiar sense,”and refers to the revelations which God 
makes.—3. The two adverbs, at the beginning, serve the purpose of setting forth 
the partial and incomplete character of the O. T. revelation. The distinction be- 
tween them is that which is given by Liinemann in his note.—4. év does not mean 
by, but in.—5. If the text-reading é7’ éayatov Tov juepav TovTwy is adopted, as it 
undoubtedly should be, t. 7. Tour. is used as equivalent to 6 aidv ovroc, and the 
N. T. revelation is conceived of (as ordinarily by the N. T. writers) as made in the 
closing period of the ante-Messianic age, 1. e., the period before the full establish- 
ment of the Messianic kingdom.—6. vig is translated both by A. V. and R. V. 
“his Son.’ It is difficult, in a version, to express the exact idea of vi@ as here 
used in distinction from T@ vi@, or TO viv aitov. What the writer means is: one 
who stands in the relation of son to God, and not in the position of a mere prophet. 
It is a characteristic, descriptive word here, and not a proper name. What Christ 
is, as Son, is set forth in the sentences which follow, and, indeed, throughout the 
epistle. 

(d) The statements in vv. 2, 3 respecting the one who is vide are contained in 
three relative clauses, the last of which includes several minor and participial 
clauses. If the progress of the compound sentence is closely observed, it can 
hardly fail to be noticed that the verbs are intended to be arranged in a certain 
chronological succession. This is clear in the case of éroinoev—roinoapevoc— 
éxadioev; and, this being the fact, it can hardly be otherwise than true, that the 
same holds good respecting @37xev, as related to the other words. As the yerb 


412 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


éroijoev evidently refers to the time of creation, é37kev must have reference to 
what preceded that time, and hence is, doubtless, to be understood of the eternal 
purpose of God, who appointed the Son, while in His condition as Aéyo¢ aoapkoc, 
heir of all things. In the carrying out of this purpose, He made the worlds 
through Him; employed Him as the one who should make purification of sins; gave 
Him a seat at His own right hand in the Heavens; and bestowed upon Him a 
more excellent name than on any other. The correspondence of this description 
of the Son with that which is given by Paul in Col. i. 15 ff. is very noticeable. 
See, also, notes of Amer. Ed. on that passage in Col., in Meyer’s vol. on Phil., Col. 
and Thess. The idea of kAnpovduov ravtwv, which is not presented in Col., is here 
introduced, not improbably, in connection with, and as preparatory to, the thought 
of the dominion of Christ, which is referred to in the latter part of this chapter, 
and of that glorious consummation which is alluded to in chap. ii. The suggestion 
of the Headship of Christ and His exaltation is made, in another form and in a 
somewhat different connection, in Eph. i. 20 ff, Phil. ii. 8-10, and at the end of the 
passage in Col. (i. 18 6). 

(ec) The word azaiyacua (ver. 3) is one whose precise meaning has been much 
discussed and is quite difficult of determination. It is derived from a7é6 and 
avyacua, avyatw, avyj. The formation in va and the most natural sense of a7é 
would seem to suggest the idea of light flashed or rayed forth from a luminous body. 
If, however, a76 is to be understood in the sense which it has in the kindred verb 
of sound, a77xéw, to sound back, and in the corresponding noun azfynua, echo (or 
the sound coming back, or sent back, from an object which has been struck, as it 
were, by that which went forth from the resounding body), the idea of azabyacua 
will be that of reflection. Either sense of a6 in compounds is, apparently, allow- 
able. This word occurs in but few places, and unfortunately for the decision of 
the question of its exact signification, the passages in which it is found are open 
to dispute. There is bait one passage in the O. T. Apoe. books, Wisd. vii. 26, and 
none in the O. T. or N. T. except the one before us, which can throw any light 
on the meaning. _ Directly opposite views are held, as e.g. by Bleek and Liinem, 
respecting Wisd. vii. 26. The fact mentioned by Liinem., that éoorrpov and eixév 
are used in parallel clauses of that verse, is undoubtedly favorable to his under- 
standing of avaiy. as there used. But it is not decisive, because the writer may 
have intended to use two figures—one of rayed-forth light, as connected with 
aidiov ¢@¢, and another of a mirror or image, as related to évépyeva and ayadéryc 
(see the words of the passage in Wisd., as quoted by Liinem.) ; and, as Bleek says, 
the meaning may be, that wisdom is a light beaming forth from the everlasting 
light, and, for this very reason, an image, ete. The passages cited from Philo and 
other writers by different comm. are equally uncertain, though the first one which 
Liinem. gives from Philo seems to be more naturally interpreted according to 
Bleek’s view. 

The position taken by Liinem., that the form in sa, as distinguished from joc, 
determines the question, can hardly be sustained. All that the form in ya requires 
is, that the passive idea should be in the substantive, and this is found in the flashed- 
forth light. More properly we may say, with Cremer (Lex. N. T.), that the noun 
may mean either brightness or reflection, so far as its derivation is concerned ;—and 
so we must form our conclusion according to the probabilities of the passage which 
may be before us. In noticing these in the present case, we may observe that 
66£a seems to refer to the being of God as manifesting itself outwardly, and trdéo7n0r¢ 


NOTES. | 413 


to the being of God in its inward essence. This being the fact, we may believe 
that the writer had in his mind the two ideas, and that, in his description of the 
Son, he intended to set forth His relation to God, with emphasis and complete- 
ness, by the use of the two words. If this was his purpose, it is probable that he 
did not desire simply to make an ordinary parallelism— as of a reflected image of 
a luminous body and a stamped image of a die or stamp ;—but that he wished to go 
beyond this, and, in his parallelism, express in each part that which belonged to 
the peculiar figurative word which he selected. The Son is, thus, on the side of 
the défa (the outward manifestation of God’s being) the effulgence—the rayed-forth 
light,—which comes from it, and, on the side of the trdoraote (the inward essence) 
the express image, the exact counterpart, answering to it. 

The decision between the two possible meanings of atatyacpua is, however, not 
essential to the doctrine of the passage, and is not of great importance even as 
bearing upon the main thought of the two clauses ; for, in either case, the inter- 
pretation of the words places them in close relation with the words of Paul, in 
his later Epistles, and of John, in his Gospel, and makes this writer declare that 
Christ is ek@v Geov, with all which that expression involves. 

Grimm (Lex. N. T.) gives to axaiyaoua the meaning splendor repercussus ; iE: 
and S. 7th ed. and Rob. regard it as meaning effulgence. R. V.,and A. V., as well as 
the recent English translations generally, adopt the latter signification: effulgence, 
brightness. So also, in addition to the writers mentioned by Liinem., Alf., W. and 
Wilk., Bib. Comm., Angus., in Schaff’s Pop. Comm., Stuart and others. Ebrard 
translates by ray-image—“a light radiated from another light, and viewed as now 
become an independent light”—thus fully satisfying the passive form. 

(f) There can be no reasonable doubt, both by reason of the correspondence 
with déga and because the use of the word in the sense of person belongs only to a 
later time, that indéoracie here denotes essence or substance—that which stands 
under the outward form. Of this essential being of God the Son is the yapaxryp, 
the very image (R. V. text), the impress (R. V. marg). Ebrard says, “ As it belongs 
to the dé£a to concentrate and reproduce itself in a form composed of rays, a sun, 
so it is proper to the ovoia or técracce to stamp itself out in a manifest form or 
figure. This form or figure, however, is not to be viewed as a copy, bet as an im- 
mediate and substantial rendering visible and corporeal, of the btéaraovc.” 

(g) The close connection of the ¢épev clause with the preceding words by Te, 
is, doubtless, intended to intimate that the statement of this clause naturally 
follows upon that which goes before. Being the atavyacua K.7.A., it is His office, 
as to create, so also to sustain all things. The participles &v and ¢épov are evidently 
continuous present participles, and indicate what the Son is in His permanent 
existence and in His work of power.—(h) The word airov, in the expression 7 
phuare tHe Svvauewc avtod, is to be referred to Christ for the following reasons :— 
1. Because the clause is a participial descriptive clause, which has reference to 
the Son. 2. Because the action spoken of (¢ép#v) is an action of the Son. 
3. Because there is nothing in the surrounding context which necessitates any 
other reference. 4. Because the entire passage is evidently designed to set forth 
the glory of the Son. 5. Because the instrumental agency of the Son in the crea- 
tion, as presented in the kindred passages of John (Gosp. i. 3) and Paul (Col. i. 16 
£.), points only to what is declared here in the last clause of ver. 2; while what 
Paul says in Col. i. 17 (abré¢ éorw mpd navtwv kal Ta ravTa év aiT® ovvéoryKer) 
accords rather with the present verse, if aitov is understood of the Son, than if of 





414 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the Father. The complete dependence of the creation on the Son is the ideaon which 
both writers are insisting with emphasis. 6. Because the statement, if airov is 
made to refer to the Father, contains a thought not thus formally expressed else- 
where in the N. T. 

(i) The participle rocyoapevoc is antecedent to éxaf:cev, and describes the work 
of the Son while in His earthly life, and what He accomplished especially through 
His death. The preceding participles are clearly distinguished from this, and 
their reference and significance are indicated by this fact, as well as by the other 
suggestions of the passage. The explanation: cleansing, or purifying from, rather 
than of, which is given by Liinem. to kafapioudv as connected with tov auapridv is 
probably correct ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 9. Bleek, Alf., and others say of. De W. 
agrees with Liinem. It does not seem probable, on the other hand,—certainly, 
not necessary,—that év iydoic should be taken, as Liinem. holds, with éxadioev, 
The connection with “eyaAwovvy¢ is sustained by a number of parallel cases in the 
N. T., where the article is omitted with a defining prepositional phrase following 
a noun; and by means of this connection the expression here used becomes more 
simple and natural. 


Ke Vivre. 


(a) At the 4th verse the development of the subject of the epistle begins, and 
from this point the argument in proof of the proposition involved in the first three 
verses moves steadily forward through the entire letter, until the end of the twelfth 
chapter is reached. The plan of the epistle is fundamentally different from that 
which we discover in the principal doctrinal epistles of Paul. In the latter, Paul 
has, in each case, a doctrinal section, containing the proof of the proposition which 
he desires to establish ; and only when this is finished does he turn to a practical 
section, whose exhortations are more or less connected with what has been pre- 
viously proved. This writer, on the other hand, carries his argument, as just in- 
timated, throughout his whole work, and interweaves into it a hortatory element 
at every stage of its progress. This hortatory element is everywhere the same. 
The exhortation is-always directed to one object—that the readers should not 
abandon the N. T. system and go back to Judaism, but'should hold fast and endure 
to the end. It is repeated at the close of the presentation of each point of the 
argument ; and, in each successive case, the readers are urged to yield to it in view 
of what has been established in the next preceding sub-section. 

The underlying thought of the writer, as he begins his course of reasoning, seems 
evidently to be the following :—The N. T. system is superior to the O. T. system, 
in the first place, because the instrumental agent employed by God to introduce it 
is more exalted than the instrumental agents employed to introduce the O. T. 
Of these latter agents there were two: the angels and Moses. Christ is more ex- 
alted than either of these. And first, He is more exalted than the angels. This 
underlying-thought is plainly indicated by the progress of the argument, but it is 
left to the reader to supply. It must be supplied at the beginning of ver.4 in 
order to make the statement of the plan, and also of the proof, complete. 

It is the last of these points which is now developed :—Christ is more exalted 
than the angels. This is proved, /irst, in what may be described as a more direct ; 
and, secondly, in what may be styled a more indirect way. The former in i. 5-14; 
the latter in ii. 5-18. ‘The hortatory passage belonging to the former includes ii. 
1-4; that which belongs to the latter is found in iii. 1. Then follows, in iii, 2— 


NOTES. 415 


iv. 16, the comparison of Christ with Moses, together with a hortatory passage 
appertaining to it. In the direct setting forth of the superiority of Christ to the 
angels two points are presented: 1. He is called Son, while they are called ser- 
vants, vv. 5-7. 2. He has everlasting dominion, while they are sent forth as 
messengers and ministers, vv. 8-14. 

(6) While the plan of the epistle, as well as the absence of any salutation or in- 
troductory passage, distinguishes it from the Pauline writings, it will be noticed 
that the omission of what has been alluded to as an underlying thought, and the 
manner in which the first point of the argument is brought in, as grammatically 
subordinate to the verb éxdfiev k.7.., are characteristic of Paul’s style. We find 
thus, here as everywhere throughout the epistle, that combination of resemblances 
to the letters of the Apostle with marked differences, which renders the question 
of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews one of so much difficulty. It 
must be admitted, however, that these points of unlikeness which are met with at 
the very beginning, and which have been mentioned, are deserving of most serious 
consideration. They are points connected with the essential elements of an 
author’s thought and his manner of writing, and points in which it is not easy to 
believe that a man of Paul’s peculiar habits of mind would have turned aside, in 
one of his epistles, from his ordinary course in his other writings. 

(c) The view of Liinem., expressed at the beginning of his note on ver. 4,—that 
the author at first, in vv. 1-3, has reference to the O. T. revelations in general, and 
now, in this verse, turns to the Mosaic—is hardly to be accepted, because it breaks 
the unity of the passage, and because the comparison throughout all the epistle is 
between the Mosaic and the Christian revelations. 

(d) As to the individual words and phrases of vy. 4-7, the following points may 
be noticed :—1. yevduevoc is, as Liinem. also says, to be connected with éxdticev, and 
thus refers to the time when Christ took His seat at the right hand, ete. It indi- 
cates, together with the verb, the last step in that succession which begins with 
éOnxev of ver. 2.—2. With respect to kekAnpovounkev Alford justly remarks, that 
“the kpeitTwv yevou. is not identical with it, but in proportion to it: the triumphant 
issue of His Mediation is consonant to the glorious name which is His by inherit- 
ance.” The verb kAzpov. is, thus, used because Christ, in His very nature, stands 
and has always stood in the relation of vidc, and also because, in a certain sense 
and completeness, He entered into possession of His glory as vid¢ at the time when 
His earthly work was finished.—3. With respect to the question of the time indi- 
cated by ojuepov, it may be noticed: (x) that the time-element is not the promi- 
nent one in the writer’s thought as he introduces these citations; vidg is the em- 
phatic word. It is not impossible, therefore, that the citations are made without 
attaching any definite notion to ofuepov, as Riehm and de Wette suggest. It is 
evident, however, (y) that, if 742 of ver. 6 is explained according to its position 
in the sentence, there is a reference in that verse to time—a fact which would 
seem to suggest, at least, a similar reference in ver. 5. It will, also, be observed 
(z) that, in the O. T. passages as originally written (Ps. ii. 7 and 2 Sam. vii. 14), 
the time-element is not without prominence. While it cannot properly be 
affirmed, therefore, with Liinem., that the view of de W. and Riehm involves an 
unexegetical supposition, it must be regarded as not improbable that the writer 
of the epistle had in his mind the idea of time. If he had this idea, the deter- 
mination as to what the time which he thought of was, will depend on the adjust- 
ment to each other of two points:—jirst, the evident fact that in the O.'T. the 


416 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


words, both in Ps, ii. and 2 Sam. vii., refer primarily to Solomon (or in Ps. ii. to 
some Israelitish king), and, so far as they are Messianic, to the Messiah’s reign on 
earth, and, secondly, the preceding and following context in this chapter. This - 
adjustment seems, on the whole, to be most successfully made by carrying back— 
in the transference of the application of the words from the earthly king to the 
Divine Son—the time of constituting the sonship, or “begetting,” to the period 
indicated in é6jxev k.7.A, of ver. 2. There are, then, two epochs referred to,—that 
in ver. 2, when it was said to the Son, “Thou art, etc.; To-day have I begotten 
thee,” and “I will be to him,” ete.; and that in ver. 6, when it is said, “Let all 
the angels worship him:”—the epoch of His appointment as heir of all things, and 
the epoch of the final consummation of His glory at the end of His work. Both 
parts of ver. 5 have reference to the same time.—4. The position of tau, of ver. 
6, in the sentence in which it stands, and the connection of the verses, make it 
almost, if not indeed absolutely, certain, that it is not parallel with the same word 
in ver. 56, but that it qualifies eicayayy. The objections to this view, which are 
mentioned by Bleek, in his first edition, and Ebrard, are satisfactorily answered 
by Liinemann. The appropriateness of the word eicayayy to express the idea of 
the introduction to the full possession of the kingdom (comp. Exod. xiii. 5; Deut. 
vi. 10, etc.); the reference of oixovévy in ii. 5 to the Messianic aiov; the following 
verses of this chapter which speak of eternal dominion and the subjection of all 
enemies; and the evident intention of the author, in the early verses, to cover in 
thought the whole progress of the work of the Son, even to its end ;—all these 
things point very clearly to the second coming as indicated by wad. 

(e) Ver.7 may be regarded as having a twofold connection. By the construction 

with év and dé, and the correspondence of mpo¢ trode ayyéAove with mpoc Tov vidr, it 
is evidently intended to have a close relation to ver. 8. By the indication that 
the angels are, like the winds and the lightning, mere servants of God, it stands 
in contrast to ver. 5, where Christ is presented as Son, and gives, as it were, a 
ground for the call apon the angels to worship Him, which is quoted from the 
LXX., in ver. 6. 
XLII. Vv. 7-14. 
(a) The immediate and special connection of ver, 7 is, as intimated in the pre- 
ceding note, with ver. 8, and the «a at the beginning of the verse adds the state- 
meni of these two verses to that of vv. 5, 6. That the sense of the original passage, 
Ps. civ. 4, is diflerent from that of the LXX, translation which is quoted by the 
writer of the epistle, is rendered probable by the verses which precede and follow 
the one quoted, and by the progress of thought in the Psalm. We may hold, there- 
fore, with Liinem., Bleek, Ebrard, de Wette, W. and .Wilk. and other comm., 
that the Heb. is to be translated, as in A. R. V., “ Who maketh winds his messen- 
gers, flames of fire, his ministers.” [R. V., gives this rendering for the first clause, 
but translates the second, “his ministers a flaming fire” ]. On the ground that 
the order of the words in this verse is different from that in the previous verses of 
the Psalm, and that the rendering favored by Liinem., joins a singular object 
flaming fire with a plural predicate, Alford, Delitzsch, Stuart and some others 
insist that the Heb., means: “who maketh his messengers winds,” ete. Moll 
holds that, as the Hebrew verb here used, when it has a double Acc., usually 
means to make out of something, the words may be properly translated : “making His 
messengers out of winds, His servants out of flaming fire.” 


NOTES. 417 


The writer to the Hebrews evidently quotes from the LXX., and, whatever 
may be true as to the O. T. passage as originally written, his idea is that the 
angels are, like the winds and the lightning, mere ministers or servants for the 
accomplishment of God’s will. 

(b) As mpéc of ver. 7 must be translated with respect to, there can be little doubt 
that the same meaning is to be given to péc¢ in ver. 8. The preposition in the 
latter verse might be taken, so far as the verse itself is concerned, in the ordinary 
sense of to, and so Bleek understands it. He holds that the author uses 7pdéc¢ in the 
same sense in the 7th ver., also, without being distinctly conscious that the words 
there cited are not, after the same manner, addressed to the angels, as those of 
ver. 8 are to the Son. But the argument in the case goes rather from ver. 7 to 
ver. 8, than from ver. 8 to ver. 7. 

(c) Thecomm. generally regard 6 6ed¢ of ver. 8 as a vocative, both in this author’s 
use of the words and in the LXX. So Liinem., Alf., Moll, W. and Wilk, Stuart, 
Bleek, Ebrard, de Wette, Delitzsch, and many others. Comp., also, Buttm., p. 
140. As to the construction in the orginal Heb. of the Psalm, there is much 
more difference of opinion, but a large proportion of the best recent writers hold 
that the Hebrew word, also, is a vocative. The writer of the present note would 
offer the following suggestions with respect to the matter: 

1. There is no reasonable ground to doubt that the author of this Epistle 
believed, as Paul and John did, in the divinity of Christ. The correspondence 
between the early verses of this chapter and such passages as John i. 1 ff and Col. 
i. 15 ff. (see Note of Am. Ed. in Meyer’s Comm. on Col.) places this beyond ques- 
tion. The legitimate and natural explanation of vv. 2, 3 of this Chap., also, 
establishes this view. Whatever, therefore, may be true as to 6 Oed¢ in ver. 8, or 
Elohim in Ps. xlv. 6, the doctrine of this Epistle is not affected. The question 
concerns the statement of this particular verse alone, and is only as to whether the 
name God is given to Christ in this place. 

2. With regard to this question it may be noticed, first, that Elohim in the O. T. 
passage is, by no means, necessarily a vocative, but may be either a genitive in 
sense: “thy throne of God”=thy divine throne, or thy throne is (throne) of 
God, or divine—in the former case, the Elohim having more of the adjective- 
genitive character, and, in the latter, more of the predicate-genitive character ;— 
or it may be a predicate nominative: “thy throne is God”=God is the 
foundation of thy throne. [R. V. gives, as a marginal rendering, “Thy 
throne is the throne of God”]; secondly, that the explanation of Elohim in 
the Hebrew Psalm as a vocative is opposed by the fact, that this word is not used 
of the person addressed anywhere else in the Psalm; that, on the other hand, God 
is spoken of as distinct from him in two different places—as blessing him in ver. 
2, and anointing him in ver. 7; and that God is even described in ver. 7 as his (thy) 
God. The explanation of the word as a genitive or nominative, on the contrary, 
is favored by all that is said of the honor and majesty of the ruler referred to as 
given to him by God, as the reward of his loving righteousness, ete. ; thirdly, it must 
be admitted, however, that the genitive and predicate constructions alluded to are, in 
sentences of this sort, somewhat less simple and natural than that with the vocative, 
provided the latter be possible, as it certainly is here. The passages cited in sup- 
port of these constructions are few in number, and it is claimed by some writers, 
that none of them are exactly parallel to the one before us. This latter position, 
however, cannot be sustained,—at least, so far as to exclude their force as confirm- 

27 


418 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


ing the possibility of a corresponding explanation here; fourthly, as the Psalm 
has, apparently, a Messianic character, it is more difficult than it might be in 
other cases, to pronounce a decisive judgment respecting the employment in it of 
such a word as Elohim as a vocative of address; yet, inasmuch as there can be 
little doubt that it had a primary reference to some earthly ruler (perhaps, 
Solomon), it would seem that its interpretation must be mainly determined by 
this fact. Now it is to be noticed that, while the word Elohim is applied to kings 
or magistrates in two or three places in the O. T., Ps. Ixxxii. vv. 1, 6, Ex. xxi. 6, 
xxii. 8, it is thus applied, apparently, not to the individual magistrate, but to 
the collective magistracy (comp. Delitzsch on this verse). It is nowhere used as 
a title in addressing a human ruler.—In view of these considerations, it seems, on 
the whole, not improbable that Klohim in the original Psalm-passage is to be regarded, 
not as a vocative, but as having a genitive or nominative character. This explana- 
tion of the word, however, cannot be insisted upon as more than probable. It 
cannot, by any means, be affirmed as beyond question. 

3. Respecting the words as used by this writer, who quotes from the LXX, it is 
clear that the genitive construction is impossible. That 6 ded¢, however, may be a 
predicate nominative, and that the meaning may be, as Grimm givesit, “Thy 
throne, i. e. the foundation of thy throne, is God,” can hardly be denied. On the 
other hand, the use of the nominative, with the article, as a vocative is, as Buttm. 
says, well-known both in the O. T., and N. T., and is also found in the colloquial 
language of classical writers, such as Plato and Aristophanes. In an ordinary and 
independent N. T. sentence, written in this form, the interpretation of 6 Ged¢ as a 
vocative would, undoubtedly, be the most natural one. But, in the present case, 
the fact that it is an O. T. passage, which, in the original Hebrew, may probably, 
or at least not improbably, have had another construction, must be borne in 
mind, and must be allowed such weight as it deserves. 

4. It is worthy of consideration, also, that the writer of the Epistle does not 
seem to use this word eé¢ as showing the superiority of Christ to the angels; 
that is, he does not seem to make it a prominent point in his argument. This is 
indicated by two facts connected with the passage: (x) the fact, that the main state- 
ment of the cited verses, and the main idea which the author of the Epistle 
apparently desires to set forth in his use of them, is that the throne of the Son is 
for ever and ever, i. e. that He has had bestowed upon Him everlasting dominion, 
while the angels have not; and not that He is 6c, while they are not; and (y) 
the fact, that the word 6e6c, which, if intended to be used in the argument, was of 
more significance and importance than any other in the entire passage, is intro- 
duced in so incidental a way, and is passed over without emphasis, and without 
developing or dwelling upon the idea which it suggests. If the author not only 
understood the O. T., in these verses, to declare the Son to be God, but proposed 
to make use of this declaration as presenting a great fact respecting His exaltation 
above the angels, in the same way as he did of the statement in ver. 5 a, it seems 
very strange, that he should not have placed it at the beginning of his argument. 
This was the position which would naturally have been assigned to it; because, if 
the Son was God, His superiority tothe angels was put beyond question, and the 
revelation through Him was the greatest of all possible revelations. Indeed, if 
He was addressed as God and declared to be God in the O. T., what further proof 
of His superiority to the angels and Moses could be needed ina writing whose 
entire argument isso manifestly founded upon the statements of the O. T.? It is 


NOTES. 419 


evident, however, that the writer makes no further allusion to these words—as 
involving a declaration that Christ has the name vedc—in the entire course of the 
Epistle, and that he does not lay emphasis, in any other passage, on the fact that 
He has this name. 

The considerations on the different sides of this question, which have been thus 
briefly, and some of them incidentally, mentioned, must influence the decision 
that is reached. It seems possible to take one or another of three positions. In 
the first place, we may assume, either (x) that the writer to the Hebrews uses 6 
4e6c as a vocative—founding our view upon the greater simplicity and naturalness 
of the construction in the Greek, and perhaps, also, in the Hebrew, if the word is 
thus understood ; or (y) that he uses it as a nominative—giving the greater weight 
to the other reasons suggested above. In the second place, if we adopt (x), we 
may hold either (x*) that, in the use of the vocative, he intended to make the 
statement, which the employment of the name #eé¢ might naturally involve, a 
part of his proof of the main proposition which he was undertaking to defend; or 
(«**) that, without any such intention, he simply cited the passage as he found it 
in the LXX.—allowing the vocative to express whatever it might to the mind of 
any reader, but not designing to press it as a vital point in the argument. The 
probabilities of the case seem to the writer of this note to favor either <** or y, 
rather than x*. Perhaps «** may be regarded as the view which best meets the 
difficulties of the case. 

(d) The construction of the first 6 Yed¢ in ver. 9 is, also, a point of discussion 
among commentators. A.R. V. marg., Liinem., Blk., Ebr., de W., and others hold 
that the writer of the epistle uses this, also, as a vocative. R. V., A.B. V. text, 
A. V., Alf, Grimm, and many others regard it as a nominative, with which the 
second 6 edc is in apposition. The opinion is almost universal that the word in 
she Hebrew is, in this case, a nominative, (Ebrard, however, denies this), and 
there seems to be no reason for making it a vocative as used in the epistle, except 
the correspondence with the (supposed) vocative in ver. 8. But such a cor- 
respondence is not demanded by the passage, and the reasons which may be 
thought to require the explanation of 4 Seéc, of ver. 8, in this way, do not exist in 
connection with ver. 9. Delitzsch, Stuart, and some others agree with A. R. V. in 
allowing either rendering of the word in this verse. Prof. Stuart, at the end of 
his notes on vv. 8, 9 has the following words: “Does the word vedc here denote 
the divine or the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah? Most interpreters, who 
admit the doctrine of the Saviour’s divine nature, contend for the first of these 
senses; as I have myself once done in a former publication. But further examina- 
tion has led me to believe, that there are grounds to doubt of such an application 
of the word Seéc in this passage. The king here called Weéc, has for himself a 
Sede; ‘thy God hath anointed thee.” The same king has associates (ueToyouc). As 
divine, who are the pétoxor with the Saviour, to whom He is preferred?” Ho 
thinks the title Elohim may be applied, (as in the case of magistrates, but In a 
peculiar and preéminent sense) to the Messiah as King. His opinion borders 
thus upon that which is alluded to in this note under x**. He adds that, from 
other statements of the writer, there is no doubt of his regarding the Messiah as 
having a divine nature. The same is true, it may be added, if we interpret 6 ded¢ 
in these two verses according to the manner indicated by y above. 

(e) The reference in rove peroxouc cov (ver. 9) is, in the original Psalm, evi 
dently to other kings. The same general reference—that is, the exaltation of this 


420 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Son, in His everlasting dominion, above all others who, as having dominion or 
sovereignty, might be thought of in comparison with Him—seems to be intended 
by the writer, in his citation of the words. The objection which de Wette pre- 
sents against referring meTdy. to the angels, is one of much force:—that “the 
author has placed the angels in no other position than deeply below Christ ;” and 
the answers to it, which Liinemann gives in his note, do not set it aside. 

(f) The citation from the Psalms (cii.; ci. LXX.) in vy. 10-12 is evidently 
intended by the writer of the epistle to set forth the idea that the Son abides the 
same for ever (so Liinem.). In connection with vy. 8, 9, however, we may believe 
that this idea is, in the writer's mind, closely related to the thought of the do- 
minion of the Son; and hence that by all these verses, as brought together, he 
means to contrast the everlasting sovereignty of Christ with the temporary and 
changing offices of the angels, who are servants. This citation is peculiar in two 
respects: 1. in that «ipee has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text, and is 
manifestly borrowed from the LXX., and 2. in that the words are addressed in the 
original Psalm to God, and refer to Him. The first point is easily explained by 
the writer’s constant, and apparently exclusive, use of the LX.X. for his quotations. 
The second is regarded by Liinem. as due to his being misled by the «ipve into the 
idea that the words were addressed to the Son. This supposition does not seem 
to be necessary, and it is exposed to the following objections: (w) that a careful 
reading of the Psalm in the LXX. must have shown him, as the examination of 
the original Hebrew showed those who read it, that the Psalmist was speaking of 
and to God, and not Christ ; (x) that his own use and understanding of «pcoc, both 
in passages which he writes himself and in some which he quotes from the O.T., 
make it clear that he, like the other N. T. authors, recognizes the possibility of the 
application of the word to God—the mere presence of the word, therefore, could 
scarcely lead him into error; (y) that the difficulties of this passage cannot be 
considered in entire independency of those which meet us in other O. T. citations, 
which the writer makes, and in which such an explanation as Liinem. here gives 
will not prove satisfactory; (z) that, if Apollos.was the author of the epistle and 
was (as is declared in Acts xviii. 24) duvaroc év taic ypadaic, it is especially im- 
probable that an error like this, which’ does not seem to belong to an earnest stu- 
dent of the O.T., should have been made by him. The explanation of many such 
cases is, rather, to be found in the view which the N. T. writers had of the O. T. 
hey regarded it as so full of Christ in all its design and purpose, as having the 
consummation of its history and prophecy so completely and exclusively in Him— 
as being so wholly without significance, even, except as it was realized, in all its 
foreshadowings, by His life and work—that they carried Him in thought, as it 
were, into any and every part of it, and saw Him in many of its words, whose first 
pointing, as they well knew, was to some other than Himself. Their view was in 
one sense, if not indeed in another,—it was, as regarded from the highest stand- 
point, and, may we not say, in the truest conception of the whole matter,—the 
right view. He, who filled the whole, must also fill the parts. 

(g) The explanation of dcaxoviay (ver. 14) given by Liinem., Alf, de W., Blk., Moll, 
and others—that it refers to their service to God, which has in view the eternal 
salvation of His people, and is thus for their sake or on account of them—is undoubt- 
edly correct. The contrast between the angels and the Son in respect to the end- 
jessness of the sovereignty is thus set forth with a similar emphasis to that with 
which, in vy. 7, 8, the contrast with reference to the sovereignty itself is presented 


CHAP. II. 42] 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 1. Instead of the Recepta: j7ua¢ tpooéyerv (K L, Theodoret), Lachm. 
Tisch. and Alford read: tpooéyerv 7ua¢. In favor of the latter decides the 
preponderating authority of A B D E®8, Vulg. Athan. Aug. alii—Ver. 4. aitov] 
D* E*: tov Yeov, Explanatory gloss.—Ver. 6. Ti éorcv] Lachm. (but only in the 
ed. stereot.) Bleek, and Kurtz: ti¢ éo7¢v. Only insufficiently attested by C* Clar. 
Sangerm. Tol. Copt. Damascenus, although also A contains ti¢ in Ps. vili. By 
reason of the preceding tic, ti might easily pass over into ti¢—Ver. 7. After 
éotedavwoac aitév there is added by Elz., with A C D* E* M8, many cursives 
and translations, Theodoret, Sedulius: kai katéotyoacg avtov éri ta Epya 
Tav yetpov cov, Against B D*** E** K L, more than 65 min., Syr. (codices 
and some edd.) Slav. ms. Chrys. Damase. alii. The addition already regarded as 
spurious by Mill (Prolegg. 1376, 1421). Bracketed by Lachm. and Bloomf. 
Rightly deleted by Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, 
Reiche, and others. Complementary gloss from the LX X. Comp. the exposition 
of ver. 7—Ver. 8. év yapT@] So ACK L,al. Lachm. and Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, 
after BD E M 8, 23: év tO yap.—Ver. 9. Besides yapite Aeov (so also in 
the Cod. Sinait., as well as A B C D E K L, al.), Origen,—in Joann. i. 1, Opp. iv. 
41; in Joann. xi. 49, Opp. iv. 393; in Joann. extr. Opp. iv. 450,—Theodor. Mop- 
suest. (in N. T. commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt, ed. Fritzsche, Turic. 1847, 
p. 163 f.), and Jerome, on Gal. iii. 10, know ofa reading yopic¢ Yeov, to which 
the two former give the preference. Theodoret ad loc. and ad Eph. i. 10, takes 
notice only of the reading ywpic eo, In like manner do, also, Anastas. abbas 
Palaestin., in the 8th century, in his work, Contra Judaeos (Latin ed. Canis.), in 
ant. lect. iii.; Ambrose, de fid. ad Gratian. ii. 8, 63, 65, v. 8.106; Fulgentius, ad 
Thrasimund. iii. 20; and Vigilius Thapsens. Contra Futych. ii. 3, cite in accord- 
ance with the same; it has also passed over into single mss. of the Peshito (some- 
times in combination with the ordinary reading; so also in Syr. Cod. Heidelber- 
gens.: “ipse enim excepto Deo per beneficentiam suam pro quovis homine 
gustavit mortem,” according to Tremellius in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8); comp. La 
Croze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, iii. 3, 64; Bode, Pseudo-crit. Millio- 
Bengel, t. ii. p. 339. So, too, it is found in Arab. Petropolitana of the 8th century 
(in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8): “quare yopic Veov, qui eum sibi fecerat templum, 
gustavit mortem itép tévtwv Tov avdporur?’ Above all, this reading was 
championed by the Nestorians (see Oecumen. and Theophyl. ad loc.). Among 
later expositors it has found defenders in Camerarius, P. Colomesius (Observatt. 
sacr. p. 603), Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid, Paulus,-and Ebrard. But neither in our 
codd. nor in the versions (with the exceptions above named) does ywpic Seot 
find any countenance; it is met with only in the Cod. M (of Tisch. ; with Wetst. 
and Griesb.: Cod. 53) of the 9th or 10th century, and in the Cod. 67 of the 11th 
or 12th century—in the latter only on the margin. On internal grounds, too, it 
is to be rejected (see the exposition, and Reiche in the Commentarius Criticus, p. 


422 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


14 ff.). Probably arose from the placing of ywpic¢ Yeov, occasioned by 1 Cor. xv. 
27, asa gloss to the words of ver. 8: oidév agyxev ait avuréraktov ; and this 
gloss being erroneously regarded by a later transcriber as a correction of yapere 
Jeov, ver. 9,was taken up in place thereof into the text—Ver. 14. Elz. Mat- 
thaei, Scholz: capko¢ kati aivatoc. But ABCD E M8, 37, al., many ver- 
sions and Fathers, have aijato¢ kai capKkoc. Already approved by Bengel 
and Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. The Recepta is a 
later transposition, since the order caps kai aiva is elsewhere the more usual 
one.—Tov avTov] D* E* It. Eus. Theodoret (semel), Jerome: t&v avtav 
madnuatav, (Erroneous) explanatory gloss.—dva tov Yavatov] D* E* It.: dua tow 
Yavarov Yavatov. An addition incompatible with that which follows. Proceeded 
from an erroneous twofold writing of Yavarov. 


Vy. 1-4. [On Vv. 1-4, see Note XLIV., pages 446, 447.] The author, in 
availing himself of the communicative form of speech, deduces from the 
superiority of the Son over the angels, set forth in chap. '1., as likewise 
from the fact that even the Mosaic law, given through the instrumentality 
of angels, could not be transgressed with impunity, the imperative obliga- 
tion for the readers to hold fast to the salvation revealed by Christ, securely 
handed down, and confirmed by God with miracles. Thus there already 
comes out here the paraenetic main tendency of the epistle: to animate 
the Hebrews, urgently exposed as they were to the peril of apostasy, to 
perseverance in the Christian faith, as this aim is also manifested else- 
where in repeated admonitions (¢. g. ii. 6, 14, iv. 14, vi. 11, x. 28) ; although 
the author has the intention of speaking further concerning the relation of 
Christ to the angels (comp. ver. 5 ff.). 

Ver. 1. Aca roiro] [XLIV b.] therefore, sc. because Christ, the mediator 
of the New Coverfant, is as the Son of God so highly exalted above the 
angels, the intermediate agents in the giving of the Old Covenant.—ée7] 
indication of the inner necessity resulting of itself from the described con- 
ditions.—*tepioooré pwc] so much the more, sc. than would be the case if He 
who proclaimed the axove#évra were one of lower rank. We have not, 
however, to connect teptocorépwc with dei (Grotius, Bengel, Dindorf, 
Bohme, Kuinoel), but with tpocéyerv as the main idea.—rposéyew toi 
mp.] to give heed or attention to anything, sc. in order to hold fast to it.— 
roi¢ akovobeiow] to that which has been heard. The salvation preached by 
the Lord and His immediate disciples is intended, of which the readers 
had heard. Comp. ver. 8. [XLIV ¢.]—jrore rapappvoper] lest haply we 
should be carried past it, i. e. lest we lose it, fail of obtaining the salvation 
promised to us by the word we have heard; comp. ver. 38. |The interpre- 
tation of Erasmus, Clarius, Beza, Cameron, Stuart, al.: lest we forget it, or 
let it escape attention, is unmeaning and almost tautological. rapapprauev 
(or rapapvouev, as Lachmann and Tischendorf 2 and 7 write it, after A B* 
D* L’&), moreover, is not, as Wittich, Dindorf, and others suppose, con- 
junctive present active of rapappvéo,—for the forms rapappréw, rapappie, 


1Comp. LXX. Proy. iii. 21: vié wh mapappuys, thpnoov Sé éuny BovdAny Kai Evvorav. 
Pp 


CHAP. II. 1-3. 423 


rapappinuc are mere figments of the grammarians,' in order to derive cer- 
tain tenses therefrom,—but sec. aorist conjunct. passive from tapappéw. 

Vv. 2-4. Establishing of the det repuocotépws mpooé yew jag Toi¢ akovobeiacy, 
ver. 1, by a warning reference to the great responsibility and culpability 
in the case of its neglect, and this in a conclusion a minore ad majus. 
Not justifiably does de Wette take vv. 2-4 asa “ proving of the danger of 
the wapapp.” For not the possibility of foregoing salvation, but the cul- 
pability of losing it through neglect, forms the central thought in vv. 
2-4. 

Ver. 2. '0 dv ayyéAwy Aadnbeig Aébyoc| the word proclaimed by angels (not: 
by human messengers, 1. €. prophets; so Daniel Heinsius and G. Olearius, 
against the connection with chap. i., and contrary to Biblical usage), 7. e. 
the Mosaic law. Of an activity of the angels in connection with the act 
of legislation on Sinai nothing indeed is mentioned in Ex. xix.; it was, 
however, a traditional view very widely spread among the Jews. See 
Schoettgen and Wetstein on Gal. 11. 19. The earliest traces thereof appear 
Deut. xxxiii. 2, LXX., and Ps. Ixviii. 18 (17). It is clearly enunciated Acts 
vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. 3.—To understand other divine 
revelations given through the intervention of angels, like Gen. xix. 26, to 
the exclusion of the Mosaic law (Dorscheus, Calov, Schoettgen, Carpzov, 
Semler, al.), or with the inclusion of the same (Baumgarten, Ewald, 
M’Caul: “To my mind, the transition to the law exclusively is in the 
present instance somewhat abrupt. Does it not rather also refer to the 
ministrations of angels vouchsafed from time to time during the whole of 
the earlier dispensation, and to which allusion is made in the concluding 
verse of the first chapter? ”), as intended by the 6 d¢ ayyéAwv Aadnfeic Adyoc, 
is forbidden—apart from the connection in its main points, and the whole 
tendency of the epistle—by the expression 6 Aéyo¢ in the singular.—The 
preterites éyévero and éAaPev characterize the period of the Mosaic law 
as a past one, the condition of life prevailing in the same as one now obso- 
lete and historically surmounted.—féBavoc ] [XLIV d.] firm, 7.e. inviolable 
and obligatory, as is evident from the explanatory clause «ai raca 
uofar. immediately following —7apafBaace the objective transgression, 
xapakof the subjective listless hearing or inattention, Uebertretung and 
Ueberhorung. Not inaptly Bohme, in preserving the paronomasia, “non 
commissa solum, sed omissa etiam.”—évdcxoc] just, in the N. T. only here 
and Rom. iii. 8. ucarodocia] selected, sonorous word, a favorite one with 
our author in the sense of the simple p.oféc, but not occurring elsewhere 
in the N. T. The term is a vor media, signifies thus recompense. Tt is here 
employed in the unfavorable sense (== punishment), x. 35, xi. 26, in the 
favorable sense (= reward). 

Ver. 3. The apodosis follows in the form of a question, which for the 
rest extends only to cwrpiac, not to the close of ver. 4.—réc] how is it 
possible that.—jueic] has the emphasis. The Christians in general are 


1 Without warrant Delitzsch denies this. He has not been able to adduce an instance in 
favor of the opposite opinion. 


424 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


meant, in opposition to the men once belonging to the O. T. theocracy, of 
whom the writer has spoken at least by implication in ver. 2.—éxgevtdue6a] 
stands absolutely, as xii. 25; 1 Thess. v. 3. Needlessly do Heinrichs, 
Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and many others supplement from ver. 2: 
tiv évdixov pcbarrodociav.— aeAnoavrec] Instancing of the case or condition, 
after the arising of which an escape or deliverance from punishment 
becomes an impossibility : in case that, or if, we shall have neglected (slighted). 
The participle aorist is properly used, since the culpability must first have 
been incurred before a punishment can ensue.—ryAiKaity¢ owrnpiac] 
[XLIV e.] such a salvation, i.e. one so great, so far surpassing in exalted- 
ness that of the O. T—ryAcatty¢ does not in itself contain a reference to 
q7e¢ (Tholuck and others; the former will then have jv taken in the 
sense of dore), but stands there independently of any correlative; it is 
then, however, after the question has closed with cwrypiac, enforced by the 
clause with ye (quippe quae).— ire apyjv AaBovoa Aarsiobat dia TOU Kvpiov, 
bd Tov akovodvtwv Eig nuac &BeBadty| which indeed, at first proclaimed by the 
Lord, was handed down with certainty to us by them that heard it. Wrongly 
does Ebrard translate: “ which was confirmed to us by the hearers, as one 
proclaimed by the Lord from the very first,’ in supposing that apyjv 
AaBovca depends upon éBeBaaby as an “apposition of object.” For how 
can apyiv AaBdv Aadreiofac denote something proclaimed “from the very 
beginning,” or “from the commencement ”? And how unskilfully would 
the author have proceeded in the choice and position of his words, if—as 
Ebrard supposes—he had wished to express the thought, “ that the cwrypia 
was directly revealed by the Lord, has been transmitted to us as a cer- 
tainty, and thus asa divine legitimation of the cwrpia by the axotcavrec, 
the ear- (and eye-) witnesses!” “Apy7v AaPeir, to begin, always presup- 
poses an oppositiofi, expressed or understood, to a being continued, or to 
a being brought to an end. When thus in our passage there is mention 
made not only of an dpyjv 2aBeiv Aareioba by the Lord, but also of a BeBaw- 
Ajvac cig 7yuac On the part of those who heard the Lord, it is clear that the 
author will have these two factors regarded as statements of two distinct 
but mutually corresponding periods of time.—In general, it is wrong when 
Ebrard, in connection with his explanation just adduced, will find in ver. 
3 the twofold contrast with the law—(1) That the law was a mere word 
(Aéyoc); the gospel, on the other hand, a deliverance, a redemption, an act. 
(2) That the cwrypia was manifested and proclaimed to men as at first 
hand, by the Lord Himself; the law, on the contrary, only at second hand, 
by the angels. For, as concerns the first alleged point of difference, 
assuredly the emphasis rests neither upon Adyoc, ver. 2, nor UpON owrypiac, 
ver. 3; but, ver. 2, upon d? ayyéAwrv, and, ver. 3, upon ryAikabryc. The 
second alleged point of difference falls, however, with the consideration 
that the author employs the preposition dca, as before ayyéAw, ver. 2, so 


1Theodorus Mopsuestenus: éxetvo vouimwv  emayyedia Kai abavacias imoaxects’ O0ev Kad 
Scots Fv povov, évtaida Sé Kal xapis TvEUpaTos Sixaiws THALKaUTHS elzeEV. 
Kat Avots apapTnaTwy Kai BaciAcias ovpavav 


CHAP. ll. 3. 425 
also before rov kvpiov, ver. 3; thus indicates that the supreme Author alike 
of the Mosaic law and of the gospel is God Himself, both consequently 
are proclaimed to man “ only at second hand.” The pre-eminence of 
the gospel can accordingly have been discovered by our author only in 
the fact that in connection with this the Lord Himself was the interven- 
ing agent; in connection with the law, on the other hand, only the angels, 
who, according to chap. 1., are subordinate to the Lord.—izd tov akoveay- 
rav] by them that heard it (sc. from the Lord ; rapa rou Kupiov, Chrysost.), thus 
by His apostles and immediate disciples. From these axobcavrec the author 
distinguishes himself and his readers (eic juac). As well he himself as the 
Palestinian Christians to whom he writes must consequently have already 
belonged to a second generation of Christendom, and the author of the 
epistle cannot have been Paul (comp. Introd. p. 11). [XLIV g-| When 
Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 378, 2 Aufl.) objects to this: “from ei¢ juac is 
in truth evident only that the author belonged not to the number of those 
who could testify that they had with their own ears heard the Lord, at 
the time when He was upon earth proclaiming that salvation which 
they now preached,” this is indeed perfectly correct. But when he adds 
that Paul likewise had certainly only heard the word of salvation from 
the mouth of those who had listened to Jesus, this is—so long as the 
solemn asseveration of Paul himself (comp. expressly Gal. i. 12) has any 
value for us—decidedly false. For Paul reckons himself not among the 
disciples of the axoicarrec, but among the dxobcavtec themselves. For the 
circumstance that the axobe was otherwise brought about in his case than 
in the case of the original apostles, inasmuch as these had stood in the 
relation of axoécavrec to the Christ walking upon earth, Paul, on the other 
hand, stood in the relation of an axoboag to the exalted or heavenly Christ, 
left the essence of the matter itself untouched. Nor even by the assump- 
tion of a so-called dvaxotvwowc, to which recourse has very frequently been 
had, can the conclusion resulting with stringent necessity from the words 
of our verse be set aside ; for that which the writer of a letter says to his 
readers by means of an avaxoivwor is always of such nature as to be like- 
wise true of himself; never can it stand in excluding opposition to him- 
self.—éBeBad6y] corresponds to the éyévero BéBawc, ver. 2; and etic puas 
éBeBadOn is a well-known blending of the notion of rest with that of the 
preceding movement. See Winer, p. 386 f. [E. T. 414 f.] Theophylact: 
SieropOpmevOn cic uae BeBaiwc kai wLoT Oe, it came to usina firm, trust- 
worthy manner, so that it has become for us a owrnpia PeBaia. Wrongly 
Heinrichs (and so also Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Wolf, Cramer, Paulus, and 


1] cannot bring myself to recall this remark, is, moreover, remote from the thought of the 


although Delitasch takes so great offence at 
it that he finds therein “a toning down of the 
opposition in gross misapprehension of the 
sense of the author.’ The conception of an 
“immediate ” speaking on the part of Jeho- 
vah in the N. T., on which Delitzsch insists, 
p. 49, 51, is regarded in general unbiblical ; it 


author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the 
whole chapter in itself shows: only by forcing 
upon him dogmatic notions already a priori 
determined, and entirely disregarding the 
laws of grammar, can it be brought out from 
his statements. 


426 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


others), according to whom ei¢ #ua¢ signifies ad nostra tempora, or usque 
ad nos. 

Ver. 4. Luveripaprupovvtoc tov Oeow x.7.A.] im that, with them (the axovcarrec), 
God bore testimony in addition, to the same (the salvation, the owrypia), by 
signs and wonders. The doubly compound word ovver:yaprupeiv in the N. 
T. only here. Nor is it found at all in the LXX. With later profane 
writers, on the other hand, it is not rare oyweia and répara only dis- 
tinguished in the form of conception as signa and portenta, not different 
in the notion conveyed by them. Comp. Fritzsche on Rom. xv. 19 (t. iii. 
p. 270).—roixita¢] belongs only to dvvayzecw. The adjective is not likewise 
to be referred to pepicuoig (Bleek, Maier). For the notion of rockiAov is 
again specially brought into prominence in the sequel, in that it forms an 
element also in the contents of kata ri avtov bé4n0w.—The duvdpecc, how- 
ever, are not miraculous acts, but the source of the same: miraculous pow- 
ers.—kai Tvevuatoe ayiov pepiopuoic K.7.A.] and distributions of the Holy Spirit 
according to His good pleasure. xvebpatog dayton is genitivus objectiv., not 
subjectiv. (Cameron and others); and wepsopuéc, which (iv. 12) signifies 
dividing, denotes here, in accordance with the use of the verb pepifec», 
vii. 2, Rom. xii. 3, 1 Cor. vii. 17, 2 Cor. x. 18: an apportioning or dealing 
out, distribution.—xara tiv abtod béAnow] Addition, not to the whole period, 
ver. 4 (Abresch, Bhme), nor to rouxita . . . weptopoic (Bleek), but only to 
pepisnoig (de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz), on 
which account this is also placed after the genitive wveiuaroc dyiov. abtod 
relates back to rod deod, not to rvebuatoc ayiov (Oecumenius, Carpzov), and 
the whole addition xara rv abrod bé40w has the design not only in general 
of representing the bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit on the part of God as 
a work of His free grace, but also of pointing to the manifold character 
of those distributfons, inasmuch as, according to God’s free determination 
of will, the Holy Spirit was communicated in greater fullness to the one 
than to the other, and of the special gifts of the Spirit to the one was 
granted this, to the other that. Comp. 1 Cor. xii? 

Vy. 5-18. [On Vv. 5-8, see Note XLV. pages 447-450.] Further 
investigation of the relation of Christ to the angeéls, and demonstration of 
the necessity for the death of Christ. Not to angels, but to Christ, the 
Son of man, has, according to the testimony of Scripture, the Messianic 
world been subjected. Certainly Christ was abased for a short time lower 
than the angels; but so it must be, in order that mankind might obtain 
aalvation; He must suffer and die, and become in all things like unto 
men, His brethren, in order to be able as High Priest to reconcile them to 
God. 

Ver. 5. [XLV a.] The author has brought into relief the fact, ver. 3, 
that it was the Son of God, or the Lord, according to chap. i., highly ex- 
alted above the angels, by whom the Messianic salvation was proclaimed, 


.1See examples in Bleek, Abth. IL 1 Hilfte, ad Phryn. p. 7, 353; Pollux, v. 165: BovAnots 
p. 218. ér.Ouuia, dpegis, Epws’ n SE OEAHatS idiw 
£On the un-Attic @éAnars, comp. Lobeck, rexdv. 


cHAP. I. 4, 5. 427 


and from whose immediate disciples it was handed down to Christendom. 
He now justifies this order of things as founded in a higher divine decree, 
and already foretold in the Scriptures of the Old Covenant. That order 
of things is, however, justified, in conformity to the comparison of Christ 
with the angels, which is begun with i. 4, first, e contrario or negatively, 
ver. 5, and then, ver. 6, positively. The emphasis lies in ver. 5 upon avy é- 
2occ, and this then finds its antithesis in avépwroc and vid¢ avpdmov, ver. 
6. For when the author first in an absolute form of expression says : For 
not unto the angels has He put into subjection the world to come, and 
‘then continues: But one in a certain place testifies, etc., the sense—on 
account of the close connectedness of ver. 6 (see on that verse) with ver. 
5—is certainly this: for, according to the testimony of Scripture, the world 
to come is put in subjection, not to angels, but to Christ, the Son of man. 
—ayyédows] without article. For it stands generically : beings who are 
angels, who have the nature of angels (Bleek). [Owen: nature angelical.] 
De Wette supposes the reason for the anarthrous form to be in the possi 
bility that only a part of the angels are to be thought of. Unsuitably, 
because in connection with obx dyyéAow already the definite antithesis: 
‘but to the Son of man,” was present to the mind of the author (comp. 
ver. 6).—iréragev] sc. 6 dedc, which naturally follows from the roi @eov of 
ver. 4, The verb expresses the notion of making dependent, or of the 
placing in a position of subjection, and is chosen because the same expres- 
sion is employed in the citation presently to be adduced (comp. ver. 8).— 
Thy oikovpévny tv wéAAovoar] the world to come. This mode of designating it 
is explained from the well-known Biblical phraseology, according to 
which the Messianic period was distinguished as the aiay pé 2/0, from the 
pre-Messianic as the aiap ovroc.! What is meant, consequently, is not 
something purely future (Theodoret : 6 uéAiwv Biog ; Oecumenius: 6 écdpuevog 
xécuoc; Schulz: the new order of the world which is approaching ; Bleek 
IL. : the blessings of the kingdom of God which will first be manifested and 
conferred upon believers at the return of the Lord in glory; Grotius, 
Maier, and others: heaven, as the future dwelling-place of the Christians 
also), but the new order of things in the Messianic kingdom, which in its first 
manifestations has already appeared, but as regards its completion is still a 
future one. Calvin: apparet non vocari orbem futurum dumtaxat, qualem 
e resurrectione speramus, sed qui coepit ab exordio regni Christi, comple- 
mentum vero suum habebit in ultima redemptione. — tiv oiKouyévyy tiv 
uéAAovoay is itself without emphasis ; on the contrary, only resumes under 
another form the ryducabry¢ cwrnpiac of ver. 3. It results from this, that 
the opinion according to which the tacit contrast is to be supplied in 
thought to the declaration, ver. 5: “the present world is indeed” to be 
regarded as “subjected to the angels, by them swayed and governed” 
(Cameron, Bleek, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 656, al.), is a baseless 


1We have not to seek the origin of the promised belonged as yet to the purely future 
addition tiv «éAAoveay in the fact that at the (so, along with the right explanation this 
time of the Psalmist (ver. 6), that which was likewise in Bleek I.). 


428 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


one. For it must then have been written ob yap ryv wéAAovoAaY oikovpévyy 
ayyéhoug irérazev.—repi 7g Aadovpev] does not go back to 1. 6 (Theophylact, 
Zeger, Grotius, Schlichting, Schulz, Bohme, comp. also Delitzsch),—against 
which the present 2adovuev, in place of which a preterite must have been 
expected, and not less the addition ryv uéAAovoay to riv oikovuévyy, is decisive, 
—nor is AadAovuev put in place of a future: “de quo in sequenti testimonio 
loquemur ” (Vatablus); but the relative clause is to be taken quite gener- 
ally: which is the subject of our discourse (our epistle). Too specially 
Kurtz: “of which we are speaking just now, in this section of our epistle,” 
which would have called for the addition of a viv. The plural AaAoiuev, 
moreover, has reference merely to the writer. Comp. v. 11, vi. 9, 11, xiii. 
18. Without good reason does Bengel supplement nos doctores; while 
even, according to Hofmann, “all who believe the promise, the apostle 
and his readers,” are the subject of AadAotyev, Inasmuch as it is only a 
question of an “additional explanatory clause, when the apostle adds 
that that world to come is intended, of which the Christians speak!” 
Ver. 6 attaches itself closely to ver.'5, in that the adversative dé (differ- 
ent from the disjunctive a@22d, but, on the contrary. Comp. Hartung, 
Partikell. I. p. 171), as iv. 18, 15, ix. 12, x. 27, xii. 18, 1 Cor. vii. 15, 25 fin.., 
and frequently, as it were correcting the preceding negative statement, 
now places in opposition the actual state of the question: Some one, how- 
ever (some one, on the contrary), testified in a certain place and said. Quite 
wrongly does Heinrichs suppose an entirely new section of the epistle to 
begin with ver. 6.—ot ti] The wavering character of this form of cita- 
tion is derived by Grotius from the consideration that the Psalms were the 
work of different authors, and the authors of particular psalms were often 
unknown. But the eighth Psalm, here cited, is, both.in the Hebrew and 
the LXX., expressly ascribed to David. According to Koppe (Excursus I. 
ad epist. ail Roman., 2d ed. p. 879), Dindorf, Schulz, Heinrichs (comp. also 
Stengel), the indefiniteness of the formula is to be explained by the fact 
that, the author is citing from memory. But the words agree too exactly 
with the LXX. to be a citation from memory, and, moreover, the indefi- 
nite mov occurs again, iv. 4, in connection with the citation of Gen. ii. 2, 
thus in connection with an appeal to a passage of the O. T. Scripture, of 
which the place where it is found could not possibly escape the memory 
of our author. De Wette, after the precedent of Bleek [cf. Peshito: the 
Scripture witnesses, and says], regards it as the most correct supposition 
that the author “ was not concerned about the particular writers of Scrip- 
ture, since for him God or the Holy Ghost spoke through the Scripture.” 
Yet, if the reason for the form of expression is to be sought in this, then 
in general we should hardly expect the personal indication tic to be 
added, but rather a passive construction to be chosen. According to Hof- 
mann, finally, rod tc is intended to declare “that it is indeed a matter of 
indifference for his purpose who said this, and where it is found; that it 
is adduced as the utterance of some man, only an utterance which comes 
invested with the authority of Scripture!” The indefinite mode of cita- 
tion has probably no other than a rhetorical ground, inasmuch as the 


CHAP. II. 6. 429 
author presupposes a universal acquaintance with the passage, without 
concerning himself to learn whether it is known to all cr not.! The same 
reticence in the mode of citation is often found with Philo.A—The citation, 
which extends to rodév abrov, ver. 8, is from Ps. viii. 5-7 (4-6). [XLV 6.] 
The utterance in its historic sense contains a declaration with regard to 
man in general ; but the author, on the ground of the ideal import of the 
passage, as likewise in particular on the ground of the expression vidc 
avdporov, Which in consequence of Dan. vii. 18 was current with the Jews 
as an appellation of the Messiah (comp. John xii. 34), which, too, was one 
often bestowed by Jesus upon Himself, finds in it a declaration concern- 
ing the Son of man kaz’ éoxHv, t.e. concerning Christ.? Paul, too, has 
Messianically interpreted the psalm, 1 Cor. xv. 27 f. (comp. Eph. 1. 22).— 
Ti éotw avdpwroc «.7.2.] Whatis man that Thou art mindful of him, or the 
son of man that Thou regardest him! i.e., in the sense of the original, How 
small, weak, and insignificant, as compared with the majestic heavenly 
bodies, is man, that Thou shouldst nevertheless take a loving and careful 
interest in him! In the application: How great and full of dignity is 
man, that Thou so greatly distinguishest him with loving care! (Kuinoel, 
Heinrichs, BGhme, Bleek, Stein; otherwise, de Wette, Hofmann, Schrijt- 
bew. II. 1, p. 45,2 Aufl.; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 361; Alford, 
Moll, Kurtz, al.). Thus the author cow/d understand the words, although 
the “ being mindful” and “ looking upon” do not very well accord there- 
with, in that he was guided in his acceptance of them pre-eminently by 
the final clause dé) . . . aitov.—7] instead of this } is found in the 
Hebrew, thus introduces a purely parallel member, in such wise that vidc¢ 
avdporov is identical with adv3pwro¢c in the first member, and is distin- 
guished therefrom only as a more sharply defined presentation of the 
same notion. 


1So substantially also Chrysostom (rodro dé 
QUTO, Olmal, TO KpVTTELW Kal My TLOéVaL TOV 
eipnkoTa THY mapTupiayv, AAA’ ws TEepipepomervnv 
kal katadyAov ovcay cioayeuy, SeckvivTos éoTiv, 
avTovs opodpa éumetpovs civar Tov ypahav), 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Jac. 
Cappellus, Cornelius a Lapide [Owen: “the 
reason is plain; both person and place were 
sufficiently known to them to whom he 
wrote ”], Caloy, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Alford, 
Maier, Moll, Kurtz, al. 

2Comp. e. g. de ebrietate, p. 248 (ed. Mangey, 
I. p. 365): etme yap mov tus (sc. Abraham, Gen. 
xx. 12). Further examples see in Bleek, 
Abth. II. 1 Halfte, p. 239. 

%In contradiction with the design of the 
whole explication, as this clearly manifests 
itself from the context, do Beza, Piscator, 
Storr, Ebrard, Delitazsch (p. 57, 59), Hofmann 
(Schriftbew. Il. 1, p. 45, 2 Aufl.), Alford, Moll, 
and others, refer av@pwmos, even in the sense 
of our author, and vios av@pwrov to man gen- 
erally, namely, to the man of the New Cove- 


nant, inasmuch as he shall receive the 
dominion over all things, in the possession 
of which Christ is already set. When Ebrard, 
p. 84, asserts that the “ Messianic” interpre- 
tation “of the non-Messianic eighth Psalm” 
cannot be laid to the account of the author 
of the epistle, without charging him with “a 
downright Rabbinical misunderstanding of a 
psalm ;” and when, in like manner, Delitzsch, 
p. 57, declares it “not at all conceivable that 
the author of our epistle should without any 
explanation have referred av@pwmos and vios 
av@parov of the psalm to Christ,” unless we 
are to attribute “the uttermost limitation of 
thought to the N. T. exposition of Scripture,” 
that is nothing else than a controlling of the 
author of the epistle by preconceived opinions 
of one’s own, from which, in the face of 1 Cor. 
xy. 27 f., one ought to have shrunk. For the 
rest, against the view espoused by Ebrard, 
Delitzsch, and Hofmann, comp. also Riehm, 
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 368 ff., note. 


430 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Ver. 7. [XLV ¢ 1, 2, 3.] "HAdrrwoac aitiv Bpayt te map’ ayyédovc] Thus 
the LXX. translate the Hebrew D778) OD TION. The sense of the 
Hebrew is: “Thou hast made Him only a little lower than God, hast 
made Him only a little less than God.” The Spayt rc is consequently 
in the original a note of degree, and the whole former member 7Aatrwoag 

. ayyéaovg contains in the original the same thought as the immedi- 
ately following 66&% Kai tiuq éoreddvwcac aizév. The author, however, takes 
the Bpayi te of the LXX. in the temporal sense: “for a short time” 
(comp. ver. 9), and finds in the second member an opposition to the first, 
in such wise that in the application he refers the statement of the first 
clause to the humiliation of Christ, that of the second to the eraltation of 
Christ.—The words following these in the LXX. (as also in the Hebrew): 
kai KatéoTyoag abtoy éxl Ta épya TOV yetpov cov (comp. the critical remarks), 
nave been left out by the author as unsuitable to his presentment. For 
the statement that God has set the Son of man or the Messiah over the 
works of creation which proceeded from the hands of God, might appear 
to contain a contradiction to i. 10 (comp. also i. 2), where earth and 
heaven were designated as works created by the hands of the Son. 

Ver. 8. Hdavra imétatag iroKdtw tov roddv avtov] All things didst Thou 
put in subjection under His feet. In the psalm these words refer to the 
dominion which God has conferred upon man over the earth, and indeed 
specially (comp. Ps. viii. 8, 9 [7, 8]) over the whole animal world. The 
author of the epistle, on the other hand, taking 7davra in the absolute 
sense, understands them of the dominion over the universe which has 
been conferred upon Christ, the Son of man. Comp. Matt. xxviii. 18.— 
With év yap 76 brordEar... dvuréraxkroy the author still dwells on 
the closing words of the citation: tavra tréragac «.7.4., in order by way 
of elucidation to unfold its contents, and thus to place in clearer light the 
truth of the main thought expressed vv. 5-8. ydp consequently refers 
back to that which immediately precedes, and the supposition of Tholuck 
—that év yip tO irordga x.7.4., a8 the clause which affords the proof, is 
parenthetically preposed to the viv dé x.7.2., as the clause which is to be 
proved, so that the connection would be: “but now we see not yet all 
things made subject to Him; for, according to the declaration of the psalm, 
all things without exception are subject to Him ”—is to be rejected as 
entirely unnecessary ; quite apart from the fact that no instance of such 
parenthetical preposing of an elucidatory clause with ydép is to be found 
anywhere in the N. T. (not in John iv. 44, 45 either), although not rare 
with classical writers.1. Nor does yap stand for oiv (Heinrichs, Stengel), 
but is the explicative namely. [XLV ¢c 4.] The subject in trordéaz, 
further, is not David, the singer of the psalm (Heinrichs), but God; and 
the emphasis rests upon the opposition between ra@ wdvra and obdév. 
The threefold air @, finally, relates not to man in general,” but to the Son 


1Comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p.467; Ktih-  rotius, Owen, Whitby, Storr, Kuinoe), 
ner, Gramm. II. p. 454. Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Hofmann, 
2 Beza [Piscator: the believers], Schlichting, Woerner, and others. 


CHAP. I. 7-9. 431 


of man, and that not merely as regards its signification,’ but—as is shown 
by the ’Iyoovv, only incidentally added, ver. 9—to the Son of man as He 
appeared in Christ as an historical person.’ The sense is accordingly : by 
the fact, namely, that God made-all things subject to Christ, the Son of 
man, He left nothing that is not subjected unto Him; itis thus also—this 
natural inference the author leaves to the readers themselves to make— 
to Him, the Son of man, and not to the angels, that 7 olkovuévy 7 édAovoa 
(ver. 5), which is only a part of that ra rdvra, is subjected; nay, the 
angels themselves, seeing that all things have been put in subjection under 
Him, are themselves subject to Him.—With viv d% obrw dpoper av1o 
ra navra broreraypuéva the author limits the immediately preceding 
declaration by an admission, by which, however, as is then further shown, 
ver. 9, the correctness of the former assertion as to the actual state of the 
matter suffers no infringement: now, however,—that must be conceded, 
—we see not yet all things subjected unto Him. For we are as yet in the 
condition of the earthly body; as yet the kingdom of God is only partially 
established ; as yet it has to wage warfare with many enemies (comp. x. 
12,13; 1 Cor. xv. 24-27) We shall see that all things have been made 
subject to Christ by God the Father only when Christ shall have returned 
for the consummation of the kingdom of God. 

Ver. 9. [On Vy. 9-16, see Note XLVI, pages 450-452. ] Proof that, not- 
withstanding the circumstances just mentioned, the matter itself which 
has been asserted is perfectly true. Certainly we do not, at the present 
moment, as yet see all things made subject to Christ, the Son of man; but 
we do see Him already crowned with glory and honor, in that after suffer- 
ing and dying He has been exalted to the right hand of the Father. From 
the reality of the one, however, which we see, follows of necessity the 
reality of the other, which we do not yet see. For if the word of Scripture: 
d6&n Kal Tinh éEotedgdveocac avTor, has already been fulfilled in His 
case, there can be no kind of doubt but in like manner also the further 
word of Scripture: tavta iméragacg broxatw Tov Todo avrtov, in- 
separably connected as it is with the former, has already attained its 
realization in Him.—The words of ver. 9 have undergone a strange mis- 
interpretation on the part of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 45 ff. 2 Aufl.). 
As Hofmann with regard to ver. 7 already denies that the two members 
of the sentence in that verse: #Adrrwoac abrov Bpayi te rap’ ayyédove and 
86En Kad TUL éoTeddvocac avrév, form in the mind of the writer an opposi- 
tion to each other, so just as little is the writer in ver. 9 supposed to have 
had present to his mind in connection with rdv Spay te zap’ ayyédoue 
faarrauévov the humiliation of Christ, and with d6& Kai tip eotedavapévov 
the exaltation of Christ. Ver. 9 is thought rather to refer exclusively to 
the Jesus “living in the flesh,” and the connection is thus explained : 
“Par from its being the case that we see all things subjected to man, He, 


1Masch, Bleek, de Wette. Stuart, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He 
2Calvin, Gerhard, Caloy, Seb. Schmidt, brderbr. p. 364; Kurtz, Ewald, al. 
Wittich, Peiree, Schulz, Tholuck, Klee, 


432 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


on the contrary, of whom that which the psalm speaks of man holds good 
in full truth, Jesus namely, stands before our eyes in a position of divine 
appointment, as such demanded by the existing calamity of death, which, 
according to ver. 14, makes the devil a ruler and us bondsmen.” For by 
Bpayd te map’ ayyédovg nAaTTwpévog there is reference made, in the opinion 
of Hofmann, to the person of man, of which the psalm is treating, with 
regard to the dignity belonging thereto as conferred by God,—inasmuch 
as Bpaxi te is to be taken of degree,—but by ro radyua tov Oavarov is indi- 
cated the misfortune consisting in death itself, and not his suffering of 
death ; and dééa Kai tiyu4 finally expresses, according to ii. 3, v. 4, 5, the 
glorious character of his position by virtue of his vocation. The sense of 
ver. 9, then, is supposed to be: “ What He, in whom the wealth of human 
nature has appeared in full truth, denotes and represents on the part of 
God,—for the former is meant by ru4, the latter by 6éfa,—that He denotes 
and represents, for the reason that mankind is obnoxious to the suffering 
of death, and to the end that He might taste a death which should redound 
unto good for every one!” See, on the other hand, the remarks of 
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 333 ff, note—rov Bpayt tre rap’ 
ayyédAove qAatTwopévor is the object, and dé6Ey Kai Tiwh Ectedavapévov 
the predicate to BAérouev, while ’Iyoovv is the appositional nearer defi- 
nition of the object brought in only at the close. The sense thus is: “ But 
we do indeed see the one for a time abased below the angels, namely Jesus, 
crowned with glory and honor.” Wrongly others: “ As the one for a time 
abased below the angels do we recognize Jesus, who is crowned with glory 
and honor.” For, in order to express this thought, ’Iycowv rov 

éoregavwpévov must have been placed. Wrongly likewise Ebrard, mai 
whom Delitzsch agrees in substance, who takes “Iyoovv as object, 
HAaTTupmévov AS adjectival attr ibute fo ‘Ijoovv, and éoredavwuévov as predicate 
to the object. The sense then is: “ mankind is not yet exalted ; but Jesus, 
who was indeed abased for a while below the angels, we see already 
crowned with glory and honor.” This construction, which at any rate 
rests upon the false supposition that the subject of discourse, vy. 6-8, is 
not already Christ, the Son of man, but only man in general, and that the 
author of the epistle had regarded as fully identical the two utterances of 
the psalm: d6&y kai tiwh éotepdvocac aitév, and ravra imétakag broKdtw Tov 
rodav avtov, would only be permissible in the case that ’Iycotv dé, tov 
Bpaxb te rap’ ayyéAove HAattwpévov, BAETomev K.T.A., OY Tov dE Bpayxb Te rap’ 
ayyéhove HAatrwpévov "Incovv BAéromev x.t.2., had been written. By the 
position of the "Ijootv after BAérouev it becomes impossible ; since in con- 
sequence thereof ‘Ijoovv appears as entirely unaccentuated, consequently 
can be regarded only as a supplementary addition by way of elucidation 
with regard to the question who is to be understood by the 6 Bpayi re 
rap’ ayyéAovg HAatTwpévoc. "Ijcovwv might even have been entirely left out 
without detriment to the sense and intelligibility of that which the author 
would imply; it is nevertheless inserted, in order, by the express mention 
of His name, to cut off every kind of doubt upon the point that it is 
no other than Christ, the historic Redeemer, of whom the citation ad- 


CHAP. II. 9. 433 


duced, vv. 6-8, is treating.—féropuev] we see, perceive; namely, with the 
eyes of the mind; comp. iii. 19, al. For it is openly testified that Christ 
rose from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in 
heayen; and Christians feel that He is reigning in power and glory by 
means of the Holy Spirit, which He has conferred upon them.—dé.a 76 
radnua tov Oavdtrov] [XLVI a.] on account of His suffering of death, belongs 
not to Bpayt te wap’ ayyédove HAarropévov,' but to dosy Kai typ Eorepavapévor. 
Only this mode of referring the clause has the merit of naturalness from 
the position of the words; only this is grammatically and logically justi- 
fied. For not only with this construction does dia with the accusative 
retain its only possible signification, but the thought likewise finds its con- 
firmation in the sequel (da tadyudtov tederoa, ver. 10), and accords with 
the view of Paul, Phil. ii. 9, according to which the exaltation of Christ to 
the right hand of the Father was the consequence and divine recom- 
pense of the voluntary abasement endured even to the death of the 
cross. Supposing the connection to be with that which precedes, 
dua 7d rd0nua Tov Oavdrov must contain a later added nearer definition to 
jiatromévov; but a second supplementary nearer definition, seeing that 
"Inoowv already occupies such a position, would be extremely improbable, 
when we consider the carefulness with regard to style which prevails in 
this epistle; it would not, like "Ijcoiv, have a purpose to serve, but be 
merely an instance of linguistic negligence such as ought not to be readily 
laid to the charge of our author. Moreover, dia 1d radynua tov Gavarou, 
referred to that which precedes, does not even admit of any satisfactory 
explanation. For, as thus combined, it is interpreted either: humbled by 
reason of the suffering of death, 7.e. by suffering death, or: humbled for 
the sake of the suffering of death, z.e. in order to be able to undertake it. 
But in the latter case the choice of the preposition d:4 would be an ex- 
_ceedingly ill-judged one, since we must, at any rate, have expected eic¢ 7d 
récyew Tov Odvarov, or something similar. In the former case, on the 
other hand, 6:4 must have been combined with the genitive instead of the 
accusative, quite apart from the consideration that the author can hardly 
be supposed to limit the humiliation of Christ to the moment of His 
death, but rather (comp. ver. 14), like Paul, to comprehend in general the 
whole period of His life in the flesh—érwc¢ yapite Yeov imép wavto¢ yebonrar 
Savitov] that He by the grace of God might taste death for every one, does not 
depend upon d6&y Kai tiuq éote~avouévov. For the enduring of death was 
certainly not something which was to take place only after the exaltation, 
but already preceded this. The contorted interpretations, however : so 
that He died for all, or: in order that He may have suffered death for all,’ or : 
postquam mortem gustavit,© are grammatically impossible. But since a 


10rigen, in Joann. t. ii. ec. 6; Augustine, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 


contra Maximin. iii. 2. 5; Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret, Oecumenius, Beza, Schlichting, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Cameron, Caloy, Limborch, 
Semler, al. 

2Luther, Calvin, Estius. Grotius, Bengel, 
Wetstein, Bohme, Bleek, Tholuck, de Wette, 


98 


des Hebrderbr. p. 357; Alford, Maier, Moll, 
Kurtz, Ewald, and many others. 

3 Erasmus, Paraphr., Tena, Ribera, Morus, 
Valekenaer, Kuinoel. 

4 Ebrard. 

5 Schleusner. 


434 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


connecting of the final clause with 7Aarrwuévor,' is, considering the gram- 
matical construction of ver. 9, quite inconceivable, ézw¢ «.7.2. can be only 
a further, but pregnant, exponent of the preceding 1d ra8nua tod Savdrov: 
on account of His suffering of death, namely, in order that He might, ete.— 
xapizt Yeov] for the grace and love of God is the supreme cause of the 
redeeming death of Christ (comp. Rom. vy. 8; Gal. ii. 21).—izép] on behalf 
of, for the weal of —ravréc] is not neuter, in such wise that the declaration 
should apply to the whole creation, including the angels (Theodoret, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. Origen, in Joann. t. 1. c. 40);? for this 
thought comes into collision with ver. 16, and the expression thereof 
would be incorrect, since we must expect in that case imép raone tie 
kticewc, or at least imép tov xavréc. Tlavtéc is masculine, and has reference 
only to mankind. The singular, however, is placed, not the plural ravtwv, 
in order distinctly to bring out the thought that Christ died on behalf of 
each single individual among men (namely, who will appropriate the sal- 
vation offered him), not merely for mankind as a totality, as a compact 
corporation. [Piscator and Owen understand: each and every one, sc. of 
the roAdoi viot mentioned ver. 10. Cf. Acts xx. 28.]—yebeodar Yavarov] rep- 
resents the experiencing of death under the figure of a tasting of the same. 
Comp. Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27; John viii. 525 The 
formula is only a more significant expression for the ordinary arodvjoxerv. 
Neither the notion of the brief duration of Christ’s death‘ nor along with 
this the notion of the reality of that death® nor, finally, the notion of the 
bitterness of the death sufferings ® lies in the expression. 


ReEMARK.—In connection with the explanation of the reading ywpic Seow 
(see the critical remarks) comes forth the main diversity, that these words were 
either taken as clysely conjoined with izép tavréc, or regarded in themselves as 
an independent nearer defining of the verb. The former mode of explanation is 
adopted by Origen, Theodoret, Ebrard, Ewald: “in order that He might suffer 
death for all beings, with the exception of God alone ;” further Bengel, and Chr. 
F. Schmid: “in order that, with a view to purchasing or subjecting all things 
except God, He might suffer death.” But against both acceptations is the fact 
that tavréc cannot be neuter (see above), against the latter, moreover, in particular 
the fact that the notion: “in order to purchase to himself,” cannot possibly be 
expressed by the mere imép wavtéc. As an independent addition ywpi¢ deov is 
taken by Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Ambrose, Fulgentius, the Nestorians, and P. 
Colomesius (Observatt. Sacr. p. 603) : “that He might taste death without God, 
ie. without the participation of His Godhead, with the mere sharing of His 


1Akersloot, Bengel, Bhme, Bisping. 

2Ebrard, too, finds the thought expressed 
in vrép mavtos: “that Christ by His death 
has reconciled absolutely all things, heaven 
and earth;” but in connection therewith in- 
consistently takes mavrés as a masculine. 

3The formula corresponds to the rabbinical 
mn opy (see Schoettgen and Wetstein on 
Matt. xvi. 28), and has its manifold analogies 
in the Greek turns: yeveo@ar .6x8wv (Soph. 


Trachin. 1101), kxax®v (Eurip. Hec. 379; Luc. 
Nigr. 28), rév@ous mexpov (Burip. Alcest. 1069), 
movwv (Pindar, Nem. vi. 41), o’orod (Homer, 
Odyss. Xxi. 98), THs apxns, THs €AevOepins 
(Herod. iv. 147, vi. 5), ete. 

4Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Primasius, Clarius, Camerarius, 
Peirce, Cramer, Ch. F. Schmid. 

‘6 Beza, Bengel. 

®Caloy, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz. 


Theophyiact, 
Braun, 


CHAP. 11. 10. 435 


humanity in death.” But that such a thought, in itself entirely alien as it is to 
the Biblical writers, could not have been expressed by ywpi¢ Feoi, is at once appar- 
ent. There must at least have been written ywpi¢ tic avtod Sedtyroc. To this 
place further belongs Paulus, with an appeal to Matt. xxvii. 46: “as without 
God, as one abandoned by God, not delivered.” But the added “as,” by 
which alone the interpretation becomes tolerable, is, without grammatical justifi- 


cation, the expositor’s own additamentum. 


Ver. 10. [XLVI b.] Not without design has the author, ver. 9, added to 
the declaration 66&y kai tyuq éotepavopévov the indication of the cause, dca 
TO Tadyua tov Yavarov, and then brought into relief this superadded 
clause by the final statement: o7wco ydapite BYeor brép ravric 
yevontac Savdrov. For the Redeemer’s death on the cross, ridiculed by 
the Gentiles as folly, was to the Jews an offence (1 Cor.i. 23). Even to the 
Hebrews, to whom the author is writing, the thought of a Messiah who 
passed through sufferings and death might be a stumbling-block not yet 
surmounted, and, with other things, have contributed to shake their con- 
fidence in Christianity, and incline them to relapse into Judaism. With- 
out, therefore, further giving express utterance to the conclusion to be 
expected after ver. 9 (see on ver. 9, init.), but rather leaving the supplying 
of the same to the readers, the author passes over, ver. 10 ff., at once to 
the justification of that fact regarded as an offence, in bringing into relief 
the consideration that the choice of that way, so apparently strange, of 
causing the Messiah to attain to glory through sufferings and death, was 
altogether worthy of God (ver. 10), and necessary (vv. 14-18), in order that 
Christ might be qualified to be the redeemer of sinful humanity.—Wrongly 
does Tholuck suppose that ver. 10 attaches itself to dé&y éoredavwuévov, ver. 
9, and expresses the thought that the glorification of Him could not fail 
of its accomplishment, who became to others the author of salvation. For 
the centre of gravity in the proposition lies not in reAedoa, but in did 
madyudtov, Which Tholuck erroneously degrades to a mere “secondary 
thought.” —érperev] it was befitting; not an expression of necessity (Kui- 
noel, Bloomfield, al.), but of meetness and becomingness, in relation partly 
to the nature of God (comp. dé? év ra mdvra kai 6’ ob Ta ravTa), partly to 
the ends He would attain (ef. vv. 14-18).\—airé dv av ré mévra Kai dv ob Ta 
mavta] does not relate to Christ (Primasius, Hunnius, K6nigsmann, 
Cramer, al.), but is a periphrasis for God. This periphrastic delineation, 
however, of the divine characteristics justifies the érperev in its truth and 
naturalness. For He who is the Supreme Cause and Creator of the Uni- 
verse cannot have done anything unworthy of Himself.—ra révra] the 
totality of all that exists, not merely that which serves for the bringing about 
of salvation (Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Paulus).—0v 6v] for the sake 
of whom,? characterizes God as the One for whom, i.e. to accomplish whose 


1Comp. Philo, Legg. allegor. I. p. 48 E (with aicxtaTos mepiTiOévar Oavpacta KadAAN. 
Mangey, I. p. 53): mpémer TO Bed uTeverv 2Not: “at whose command or will,” as 
kat oixodouety ev Wuxn Tas apetas—De incor- Wieseler (Comm. ib. d. Br. an die Gal., Gott. 
rupt. Mundi, p. 950 B (with Mangey, II. p. 500): 1859, p. 111) will have é&’ ov explained. 
éumpemes 5¢ Oem TA auopha wophovv Kai Tots 


436 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

ends, all things are designed, and corresponds to the ei¢ avrév, Rom. xi. 
36, 1 Cor. viii. 6; while d¢ od characterizes Him as the One by whom all 
things have been effected or created, inasmuch as, according to the 
popular conception, the notion of the originating is not strictly separated 
from that of effecting, since both are summed up under the more general 
notion of disposing, preparing [roiv, rapackevatew, éroyuafew]; comp. 1 
Cor. i.9; Gal. i. 1. In the case of our author, moreover, the placing of 
the inaccurate 6d’ od instead of the more accurate é oi (comp. Rom. xi. 
36) or ig’ od, may also have been occasioned with a view to the parono- 
masia produced by the use of the twofold d:a with different cases.— 
rohAove viove ei¢ bday ayayévta] is not a preposed apposition to Tov apyyyov 
che owtnpiac avtav: “it became God to make Him,—as one who led many sons 
unto glory,—namely, the Beginner of their salvation, perfect through suffer- 
ings”! Such construction is not indeed to be opposed, as BOhme and 
Bleek think, on the ground that the article 7év could not in that case 
have been wanting also before roAdotc. On the contrary, either the addi- 
tion or the omission of the article before zoAAobe would be justified; only 
a modification of the sense results from the choice of the one or the other 
course. Ifthe article is placed, then rdv roAdodve viodce sic déEav ayayévTa 
and rov apynyov tHe cwrnpiac avtov are two parallel but co-ordinate utter- 
ances, in such wise that the second repeats the first only in more sharply- 
defined form of expression. In connection with the omission of the arti- 
cle, again, the first expression stands in the relation of subordination to 
the second, and is a preposed statement of the reason for the same. But 
what really decides against that view is—(1) That according to ver. 11 the 
believers are brethren of Christ, and sons of God; consequently zoAAov¢ 
viovc¢ ei¢ défav ayayévra would be unsuitable as an utterance with respect 
to Christ, while thé interpretation of the vioie as sons of God, adopted by 
Nickel, l:c.,in connection with the referring of the ayayévta to Christ, 
would be unnatural. (2) That, assuming the identity of the subject in 
ayayévra and apynyév, both expressions would in effect cover each other, 
consequently become tautological. We must accordingly take, as the 
subject in roAdode viode eic d6Eav ayaydvta, God; in Tov apynyov Tic owrnpiag 
aitov, Christ2 It cannot, however, be urged against the referring of 
ayayévra to God (Carpzoy, Michaelis, and others), that we have not, instead 
of the accusative ayayévra, the dative ayayév71, which no doubt would have 
been more accurate on account of the preceding ai7@; since this very 
accusative is otherwise the general case of the subject grammatically con- 
strued with the accusative. Transitions to the latter, spite of a preceding 
dative, are accordingly nothing rare.2—IIoAAob¢] not equivalent to mavra¢ 


Delitzseh, Buttmann (Gramm. p. 262), [E. T. 
306]; Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 51 f.), 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 581), Al- 


1Primasius, Erasmus, Paraphr.; Estius, 
Heinrichs, Stuart, Winer, p. 321 f.[E. T. 343]; 
Ebrard, Nickel, in Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct. 


p. 20, and many others. 

2So0 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
Jact, Erasmus, Annott.; Luther, Vatablus, 
Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Bengel, 
Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, 


ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Woerner, and many 
others. 

8Comp. Acts xi. 12, xv. 22; Luke i. 74; 
Kiihner, Gramm. II. p. 346 f.; Bernhardy, 
Syntax, p. 367, fin. 


CHAP. 11. 10. 437 


(Seb. Schmidt). To2206¢ renders prominent only the notion of multitude 
or plurality, quite apart from the question whether or not this plurality is 
to be thought of as the totality of mankind; comp. 1x. 28; Rom. v. 15, 
viii. 29; Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28.—eic¢ dégav] The ddga is not distinguished, 
as to the thing itself, from the ¢wr7pia mentioned immediately after. The 
Messianic glory and blessedness is intended thereby. The word 6¢éa, 
however, was chosen in accordance with the words: 0654 Kat tyy éote@a- 
vouévov, ver. 9, taken over from the psalm cited.—ayayévta] [XLVI e.] 
cannot signify: “since He would lead.”? For the aorist has never a 
future sense. Butneither is ayayévra to be rendered by “qui adduxerat ;”? 
in such wise that the thought were directed to the saints of the 
O. T., already led to glory. For the characterizing of Christ as the 
apynyo¢e tHe owtypiac avtov. shows that the vioi, in whom was 
accomplished the eic¢ déFav dyecdac on the part of God, must already 
have been in communion with Christ,’—the communion with Christ 
was the conditioning cause of their attainment to the doga. Accord- 
ing to Tholuck, who is followed by Moll, the participle aorist indi- 
cates, “as the nearer defining of the infinitive aorist reAedoa, the 
specific character of the same without respect to the relation of time.” 
But only the infinitive, not the participle aorist is used non-temporally ; 
and the “specific character” of redecdoar cannot be expressed by ayayévra, 
for the reason that the personal objects of ayayévra and redeaoa are 
different. a@yayévra can have no other meaning than: since He led, and 
is the indication of the cause from the standpoint of the writer. The par- 
ticiple aorist has its justification in the fact that, from the moment Christ 
appeared on earth as a redeemer, and found faith among men, God in 
reality was leading eic dégav those who believed, 7. e. caused them to walk 
in the way to the déga. For only this notion of title to the dééa in rever- 
sion, not that of the actual possession of the same, can be meant; inas- 
much as the possession of the dé&a will only come in at the Parousia. The 
causal relation, however, of the participial clause: roAAod¢ viode eic ddgav 
ayayévra, to the main statement: éxpere Tov apynyov THE owTnpiac avuTav da 
radnuadtwv reAe@oa, and consequently the justification of the latter by 
the former, lies in the fact that the woAdoi vioi, just because they were not 
angels but men, could only be redeemed in that Christ for them became 
man, and for them suffered and died; even as the author himself will : 
more fully show, ver. 14 ff. Others find the causal relation by sup- 
plying, in thought, dca tadyudrwv to the first clause also.* But in this case 


1Bleek, Stengel, Bloomfield, and Bisping; 
after the precedent of Erasmus, Annott. ; 
Pisecator, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Lim- 
borech, Peirce, Starek, Wolf, Storr, Ernesti, 
Dindorf, Schulz, Bbhme, Kuinoel, Klee. 

2With the Vulgate, Estius, Hofmann 
(Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 39, 1 Aufl.; Komm. p. 121; 
differently Schriftbew. 2 Aufl. p.51), and others. 

% For the same reason have we to reject the 
kindred interpretation of Kurtz, who takes 


the ayeuv eis Sdéav as preceding the reAcraoat, 
and refers the vioi to the believing contempo- 
raries of Jesus, with the inclusion of the beltev- 
ers under the Old Covenant. 

4So Jac. Cappellus: “quum tot filios suos 
per afflictiones consecrasset, afflictionum via 
perduxisset ad gloriam pater coelestis, dece- 
bat sane et aequum erat, ut principem salutis 
eorum eadem via perduceret ad coelestem 
gloriam.” In like manner Grotius: “quia 


438 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the express addition of dé ra9nuarwy in the first clause could not have 
been omitted.—rov dpynyév] [XLVI d.] Comp. xii. 2; Acts ili. 15, v. 31. 
Designation of the beginner, or first in a series, to which the further notion 
of author then easily attaches, so that the word is frequently used, as here, 
exactly in the sense of airwc. Instances in Bleek, Abth. Il. 1 Halfte, p. 
302.—redevoar] to bring to perfection, to lead to the goal, does not here 
express “an inner moral perfection, which has as its consequence the 
attainment of the highest outward goal” (de Wette, Tholuck, Riehm, 
Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 343, 346; and, long ago, Cameron), nor does it 
denote the close of the appointed course with which God has brought 
Jesus to the goal of that which He was to become, to the end of His 
earthly temporal existence (Hofmann); but resumes the notion of the 
d6&n Kal Tim oTegavovoda, ver. 9, and is identical with this. 

Vy. 11-18. [XLVI e.] Elucidatory justification, in passing, of the 
expression toAA0d¢ viobc, employed ver. 10; in proof of the brotherly 
relation existing between Christ and believers, already indicated by that 
expression. That this view as to the aim and signification of vy. 11-18 is 
the true one, is contested indeed by Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
366 f. (comp. also Kurtz, and Hofmann ad loc.). According to Riehm, vy. 
11-18 are to be regarded not as mere accessory remarks, but as the first 
link in the proof for ver. 10, to which then ver. 14 f. attaches as second 
link ; in such wise that only in the two thoughts together (vv. 11-13 and 
ver. 14 f.), not in ver. 14 by itself (see on the verses) alone, is a confirma- 
tion of ver. 10 to be found; and accordingly the (argumentative, not 
explicative) yap, ver. 11, belongs not merely to ver. 11. The following 
“chain of reasoning,” namely, is supposed to shape the course of thought: 
“it became God,tete. For—(1) Christ is brother to the Christians; it is 
thus not unbecoming that He should have-been made like them ; and (2) 
He must be made like them, because His suffering and death were neces- 
sary, if they were to be saved.” The untenable character of this state- 
ment of the connection of thought, as made by Riehm, is, however, 
sufficiently apparent from the fact—apart from the consideration that the 
contents of vy. 11-13 manifestly point back to the expression zo/Aod¢ viodc, 
ver. 10—that if the proof for the main thought of ver. 10 was designed in 
reality already to begin with vv. 11-138, it would surely not be the proposi- 
tion: it is not unbecoming that Christ should be made like unto the Christians 
(of which there was no express mention so early as ver. 10), which must 
have been proved, but solely and simply the proposition : it is not unbe- 
coming that God should have led Christ through suffering to perfection, in 
which the true central thought of ver. 10 is contained. But such proof is 
not given.—é te yap dyidfov . . . mavtec] Now He who sanctifies and those 
who are sanctified (through Him, 7. e. through His atoning sacrificial death,} 


fieri non potest, ut qui se pietati dedunt, non 1Delitzsch arbitrarily takes aycagerv, ver. 
multa mala patiantur ... ideo Deus voluit 11, as synonymous with reAecody, ver. 10: “In 
ipsum auctorem salutiferae doctrinae non order to be crowned with Sega cat tin Jesus 
nisi per graves calamitates perducere ad must first be sanctified, or, as the author 
statum illum perfectae beatitudinis.” says, ver. 10, be made perfect through suffer- 


CHAP. 11. 11, 12. 439 


comp. x. 10, 14, ix. 13 f., xiii. 12) all have their origin in One,—is a special 
statement concerning Christ and Christians. To take the words as a 
proposition of universal validity, the application of which to Christ and 
the Christians was left to the readers, wherein there is specially an under- 
lying allusion to the O. T. high priest and those whose cleansing from sins 
he accomplished (Schlichting, Gerhard, Schéttgen, a/.), is forbidden by the 
connection with that which precedes and that which follows.—The present 
participles 6 dy:dfov kai of dyvaféuevoc are used substantively. Comp. 
Winer, p. 381 f. [E. T. 853].—é& évdc ravrec] se. eioiv. évdc¢ is masculine. 
Wrongly is it by others taken as a neuter, in that they either supplement 
in thought: oxépyaroc, or aiuatoc, or yévoug (so Carpzov, Abresch, al.), or 
else explain: ex communi massa (Jac. Cappellus, Akersloot), or “of one 
and the same nature” (Calvin, Cameron: ejusdem naturae et conditionis 
spiritualis; Cornelius a Lapide, Owen, Whitby, Moses Stuart); for neither 
is the supplying of a substantive admissible, nor can éx, expressive as it 
is of the origin, be transformed into a declaration of nature and constitu- 
tion. We have, however, to understand by évé¢, not Adam?! or Abraham* 
but God. Yet the notion of fatherhood, which is in this way assigned to 
God, is not to be expounded in the universal sense, in such wise that God 
would be called Creator and Father in relation to Christians also, only in 
the same manner in which He is the Creator of every creature,*® but is to 
be referred specially to the fact that Christians are His spiritual children.‘ 
Comp. John viii. 47; 1 John iii. 10, iv. 6, v.19; 3 John 11.—révrec] Peirce 
and Bengel would have taken with of dyia{éuevo. alone. The position of 
the word, however, renders this impossible. Rather does ravrec, after 
the close connection between the dy:dfwv and the ayaféueroe has already 
been accentuated by means of the ré. . . xaé, still further lay stress upon 
the fact that they all, the Christians not less than Christ, are é évéc.—d.’ 
jv aitiav] Wherefore. Comp. 2 Tim.i. 6,12; Tit.i.13. The same formula 
also not rarely with Philo—ov« éracytverac] He (sc. 6 ayialov) is not 
ashamed. For Christ is the higher one. Comp. xi. 16.—airotc] se. rov¢ 
ayalopévove. 

Vy. 12, 18. Documentary proofs from Scripture for the otk érawybverac 
adeAgove avtov¢ Kadetv, ver. 11. [XLVI f-] 

Ver. 12. First proof, taken from Ps. xxii. 23 (22). In its historic sense 
the citation has reference to the composer of the psalm himself, who in 
the deepest distress supplicates God for deliverance, and promises to 
praise Him for the deliverance granted. The author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, on the other hand, interprets the psalm Messianically, and 
regards Christ as the subject speaking therein.—arayyeA6] LX X.: dinyqoouac. 


ings, inasmuch as the sufferings melted away inian, Hunnius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, 


that about Him which was not capable of ex- 
altation, that He, Himself sanctified before, 
might be able to sanctify us, and so to raise 
us to like éofa.” Of a being sanctified, on 
the part of Christ, there is no mention made 
either here or anywhere else in the epistle. 
1Erasmus, Paraphr.; Beza, Estius, Just- 


Bisping, Wieseler in the Publications of the 
University of Kiel, 1867, p. 26; Hofmann, 
Woerner. 

2 Drusius, Peirce, Bengel. 

So Chrysostom and the majority. 

4Piscator, Grotius, Limborch, 
Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll. 


Paulus, 


440 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Ver. 13. Second and third proofs, taken from Isa, viii. 17,18. The design 
of the author in dividing into two different citations, by means of kai 
maAcv,the words which stand together in the Hebrew and the LXX., is 
not to present the relation of community between Christ and the Christians 
on two different sides, in that, namely, it is indicated in his first passage 
how the incarnate Son of God descended to the standpoint of man; in 
the second, on the other hand, how redeemed men are raised by God to the 
standpoint of Christ (Kurtz),—all of which is subtle and far-fetched; but 
only to pile up the Scripture testimonies, inasmuch as the end of ver. 17, 
as well as the beginning of ver. 18, seemed to him to contain each in itself 
an independent means of evidence for that which he would make good. 
The words of the first proof passage : temtoila¢ écouae éx’ aiT@, are likewise 
found in the LXX. at 2 Sam. xxii. 3 and Isa. xii. 2. But that the author 
was not thinking of one of these passages (according to Ebrard, of the 
first), but of Isa. vii. 17, is the more natural supposition, because with the 
LXX. and in the original the words, which here, too, are first adduced 
(only in partially inverted order, and augmented by 276): Kai meroidc 
écouar éx’ av’t@, immediately precede the directly following passage, taken 
from Isa. viii. 18. In their historic sense the words cited refer to the 
prophet and his sons, and, indeed, with the LXX., the idod . .. Aed¢ is a 
further unfolding of the subject in éooua. The author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, however, regards the words as an utterance of Christ, led 
thereto, as Bleek rightly conjectures, by the xa? épei, interpolated by the LX-X. 
before ver. 17, which seemed to indicate another subject than the prophet, 
since he spoke throughout the whole section in the first person; and 
other than God, since He is spoken of, by virtue of éz’ aiz7é, as the one in 
whom the speakex trusts. The demonstrative force ‘of the words cited is 
found by.our author in the fact that the person speaking, ¢. e. Christ, places 
Himself, by'means of the testifying of His confidence in God, upon the 
same level with other men;? as also in that the author understands by the 
rawia, not the children of the speaker, but the children of God, the 
children whom God the Father has given to Christ. 

Vv. 14, 15. The author, after the subsidiary remarks, vv. 11-138, returns 
to the main thought of ver. 10, now further to develop the same. [XLVI g.] 
To lead Christ through sufferings to perfection, was a provision worthy of 
God. For it was necessary, if Christ was to be the Redeemer of sinful 
humanity. In order, however, to be able to take upon Himself sufferings 
and death, He must become man as other men, and place Himself upon 
one level with those to be redeemed.*—otv] is the outward sign of that 
return to the main thought. Logically it belongs not to the protasis, with 
which it is grammatically connected, but to the main thesis: Kai abric¢ 
maparAncing peréovev «.7.A. An attachment of ver. 14 to ver. 18, therefore, 
is effected only in so far as ra radia, ver. 18, has given occasion for the 


1Theophylact: Kat dca tovrov Seikvvowv, ote em’ adTO, TovTETTL TS Tarpi. 
avOpwros Kat abeAhos nuav yéyovev. Haomep yap 2Comp. on yer. 14, Zyro in the Theol. Studd. 
ExacTos TOY avOpwrwy, oTw Kal avTos TéemoLOEV u. Ixritt. 1864, H. 3,.p. 516 ff. 


CHAP. 11. 13, 14. 441 


resuming of this word in the first clause of ver. 14. In a strangely per- 
verted fashion Heinrichs (comp. also Valckenaer): “ Quod si homo fuit 
Christus, infans quoque primo fuerit omnemque in nativitate sua humanam 
naturam induerit necesse est.”—xexovvéryxev] here, as often in the case of 
the classics, combined with the genitive ; whereas elsewhere in the N. T. 
the dative is used with kowovety (Rom. xy. 27; 1 Tim. v. 22; 1 Pet. iv. 18, 
al.). The persons with whom the communion or the common participation 
takes place are not the parents (Valckenaer, who supplies yovevoc), but the 
children themselves. One radiov with the other, one as well as the other, 
has part in blood and flesh, or possesses the same. The perfect, however, 
indicates the constant and definitive character of the order of nature, as 
this has always prevailed already, and still continues to assert its sway.— 
aiuatoc Kat capxéc| The same succession of words, also Eph. vi. 12. Other- 
wise more ordinarily: cap& kai aiua. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 50; Gal. 1. 16; 
Matt. xvi. 17; Ecclus. xiv. 18, xvii. 31. aiva xai oapé, the two main 
constituents of the sensuously perceptible outward nature of man.— 
TaparAjoioc] is not: “ equally,” ! or: “ likewise,” ?—a signification which 
is linguistically undemonstrable——but : in a manner very closely resembling. 
It expresses the resemblance with the accessory notion of the diversity ; 
in such wise that the author characterizes the human form of Christ’s 
existence, in all its correspondence with the form of existence of other 
men, as still different from the latter. And rightly so. For Christ was no 
ordinary man, but the incarnate Son of God. He was distinguished from 
His human brethren by His sinlessness (comp. iv. 15). As therefore Paul, 
Phil. ii. 7 (and similarly Rom. viii. 3), speaks of the incarnate Christ not 
as dv@pwroc yevduevoc, but as év duorcdpmate avOporwv yevouevoc, EVEN SO 
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also here places not é& icov, but 
TapatAnoiwcg wetéoxev Tov aitov. Comp. also bev ddedev Kata TdvTa ToiC¢ 
adeAdoig 6porwOAvac, ver. 17.—pyetécxev] The aorist. For the incarnation 
and the earthly course of Christ is a fact already belonging to the purely 
past; now Christ is already the glorified Son of God—rév airér] se. 
aiwatoc kat oapkéc. Erroneously, because without taking into account the 
reference imperatively required by the former clause, Bengel: eadem, quae 
fratribus accidunt, sanguine et carne laborantibus, ne morte quidem 
excepta.—dva tov Aavarov] [XLVI h.] by means of death, the enduring of 
which first became possible by the taking upon Him of flesh and blood. 
Bengel: dia tov davarov Paradoxon. Jesus mortem passus vicit; diabolus 
mortem vibrans succubuit—The placing of the characteristic tov 76 
Kpatoc éyovta Tov Oavarov before tov dia fodor is chosen, in order to 
gain a marked contrast to the preceding d:a tod @avarov. [XLVI i.]—A 
ruler’s power over death,* however, is possessed by the devil, inasmuch as 


1Bleek, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, 3Cameron, Owen, Akersloot, Cramer, 
Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl. to the Béhme, Zyro, Moll, Woerner. 
Darmstadt A. K. Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 663; Hof- 4 Over-refinedly does Ebrard take ro kpatos 
mann, Schriftbew. IT. 1, p. 57,2 Aufil.; Riehm, absolutely, and rod @avarov as genitivus sub- 
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 313 f.; Maier. jectivus: “him who holds in his hands the 


2De Wette. power which death exerts over us.” 


449, THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


by the enticement of the devil sin came into the world of men, and sin 
brings about death for man. Comp. Wisd. ii. 24: gdvm dé diaBddAov Oavaros 
elonAbev eig Tov Kéopov; Rom. v. 12. 

Ver. 15. Kai] consecutive: and in consequence thercof—arahiaéy] stands 
absolutely : might set free, deliver. Without warrant do Grotius, Wolf, and 
others supplement rod 9$6f0v or tov g6Bov bavarov.—Toirovc] does not go 
back to ra radia (BOhme, Kuinoel), but serves for the bringing into relief 
of the following 600, and ro trove boo. «.7.A. is a periphrasis of the unre- 
deemed humanity ; the thought is not merely of the Israelites (Akersloot, 
Rambach, Braun, Woerner), and still less merely of the Gentiles (Peirce). 
—6B8w Gavarov| out of fear of death, causal definition to dia mavric tov CHv 
évoyor yoav dovAciag.—dia ravtog tov Cyv] throughout the whole life. The 
infinitive is employed, by virtue of the addition zavréc, entirely as a sub- 
stantive (dia maone tHe Cwgc). This practice is more rare than the coupling 
of the infinitive with the mere preposition and article. Yet this very 
infinitive (jv is found exactly so used, as Bleek remarks, with Aesch. 
Dial. iii. 4 (Gorep cig érepov Cyv érbavoipevoc); Ignat. Hp. ad Trall. 9 (ob 
xopic Td adnOwvov Civ oik Exouev), ad Ephes. 3 (kai yap "Inoovce Xpuioti¢ td adia- 
Kpitov nuav Cyv).—évoyor yoav dovieiac] belongs together; were held in bond- 
age, had become subject to bondage. [XLVI j.] We have not to construe 
évoxot joav With $68 Gavarov, and dovdeiac with aradAd=n (Abresch, Din- 
dorf, Bbhme). For against this the position of the words is decisive. On 
the thought, comp. Rom. viii. 15. 

Ver. 16. [XLVI &.] The necessity for the assumption of flesh and 
blood on the part of the Redeemer is more fully brought to light by 
means of an establishing of the characteristic tobrove éo01 x.7.4., ver. 15. 
This assumption Was necessary, since the object of this redemption was 
confessedly not angels, i.e. beings of a purely spiritual nature, but 
descendants of Abraham, i.e, beings of flesh and blood.—ob dyrov] or 4h 
mov, as it is more correctly written, dees not signify: “nowhere” (Luther, 
Zeger, Calvin, Schlichting, Limborch, Bisping, al. ; Vulg.: nusquam), in 
such wise that zov should be referred to a passage in the O. T., and the 
sense would result: nowhere in the O. T. is it spoken of, that, etc..—For 
such reference must at least have been indicated by the context, which is 

“not the case. A% rov stands rather, according to purely classical usage 
(in the N. T., for the rest, it is found only here; with the LXX. not at all), 
to denote, in ironical form of expression, the presupposition that the 
statement to be expressed is a truth raised above all doubt, which must be 
conceded by every one. It corresponds to our “ assuredly,” “surely ” 
(doch wohl), “I should think,” to the Latin “ opinor.” *—ér:AauBdvecbai 
twoc] to take a helping interest in any one (comp. Ecclus. iv. 11), here to 
deliver him from the guilt and punishment of sin (comp. a7a2Ad&y, ver. 
15; and el¢ rd iAdoneofa tac duaprtiac tov Aaov, ver. 17; wrongly, because 


1 Ebrard still finds in ver. 16 a proof from versally acknowledged fact of the O. T.! 
the O.T. Only he supposes the author did “Comp. Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 285; 
not here feel it needful to cite a single pas- Klotz, ad Devar. p. 427, 
sage, but that it sufficed to remind of a uni- 


CHAP. 1. 15, 16. 443 


vobrove boo k.T.A., ver. 15, stands not in reciprocal relation with émAap- 
Baverar, but with the antithesis ov« ayyéAwv asia oréppatocg ’ABpaay, ver. 16; 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 59, 2 Aufl.: “in order that the fear of death 
might not in our life terrify and enslave us”). The present, since the 
éxcAauBavecba is something still continuing. The interpretation of Chry- 
sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, 
Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Wolf, and many others: not angels, 
but the seed of Abraham, that is to say: not the nature of angels, but the 
nature of the seed of Abraham did Christ assume, has fallen into deserved 
disrepute;! only Castellio, however, first perceived its grammatical 
impossibility. The proposal of Schulz to supply 6 @avaro¢ from vy. 14, 
15 as the subject to érAauBaverac: “ for certainly he (death, or the lord of 
death) does not lay hold of, or carry off, angels, but the posterity of Abraham 
does he lay hold of,” is indeed grammatically permissible ; logically, how- 
ever, it does not commend itself, inasmuch as ver. 17 stands in close con- 
nection with ver. 16, but at ver. 17, as vv. 14, 15, the subject again is 
naturally Christ—ayyédov] without article, like the following ozépuaroe 
’"ABpadu, generically. The author here excludes the angels from the 
province of the redemption which takes place through Christ. He is 
thus brought into contradiction with the teaching of Paul (comp. Col. 1. 
20)—a position which is wrongly denied by Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 
59 f.; Delitzsch, and Moll; by the first-named upon the untenable ground 
that “the design in this connection was not to say whom Jesus helps and 
whom He does not help, but what He is for those with whom He concerns 
Himself, for whom He exerts Himself! ”—orépyatoc ’ABpadu] does not 
denote mankind in general (Bengel, B6hme, Klee, Stein, Wieseler, Chron- 
ologie des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 491 f., al.), in such wise that the expression 
should be taken in the spiritual sense, or “the congregation of God, 
reaching over from the O. T. into the N. T., which goes back to Abraham’s 
call and obedience of faith for its fundamental beginning, Israel and the 
believers out of all mankind, the whole good olive tree, which has the 
patriarchs as its sacred root, Gal. iii. 29; Rom. iv. 16, xi. 16” (Delitzsch, 
Hofmann, II. 1, p. 60,2 Aufl.; Kluge, Kurtz), which must have been 
introduced and made manifest by the context; but the Jewish people 
(comp. tov Aaod, ver. 17; tov Aadv, xiii. 12). For Apollos, who (according 
to sec. 1 of the Introduction) is to be regarded as the author of the epistle, 
the conviction of the universality of Christianity must, it is true, have 
been not less firmly established than for Paul himself. He has men- 
tioned, however, in place of the genus—i.e. in place of mankind in 
general—only a species of this genus, namely, Jewish humanity; just 
because he had only to do with born Jews as the readers of his epistle. 
Grotius: Hebraeis scribens satis habet de illis loqui; de gentibus alibi 
loquendi locus. Rightly at the same time does de Wette remark that 
Paul, even under a precisely identical state of the case, would hardly 
have expressed himself as is here done.” 


1M’Caul alone has espoused it afresh. logie, vol. V., Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 208): 
2Comp. also Reuss (Nouvelle Revue de Théo- “Nous doutons, que Paul etit pu traiter un 


444 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
Ver.17. [On Vy. 17, 18, see Note XLVIL., pages 452, 453.] Inference from 
ver. 16, and consequently a reverting to the main statement in ver. 14— 
ébev] wherefore, sc. on account of the essential constitution of those to be 
redeemed, as indicated in ver. 16. [XLVII 6.] The particle é@ev is of 
very frequent occurrence in the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. iii. 1, vii. 
25, vill. 3, ix. 18, xi. 19). In Paul’s writings, on the other hand, it is 
nowhere met with.—dagevaev] He ought. Expression, not of the necessity 
founded in the decree of God (ef. ée., Luke xxiy. 26), but of that founded 
in the nature of the case itself, comp. v. 38, 12.—«ara ravra] in all respects. 
—épowbjvac] is not: “to be made the same or equal,’? but expresses, as 
always, the notion of resemblance. Christ was in all things similar to men, 
His brethren, inasmuch as He had assumed a truly human nature; He 
was distinguished from them, however, by His absolute sinlessness. 
Comp. iv. 15.—Aejuwv] merciful, fall of compassion. for the sufferings of 
the adeAgoi, may be taken by itself} but also as créc, may be taken with 
apxuepevc.* In the former case, which, on account of the position 
of the words, seems more natural, «aé denotes “and in conse- 
quence thereof,” so that éejuov indicates the quality, the possession of 
which fits him to become a mvord¢ apyrepev¢e—ror6c] faithful, so fulfilling 
His high-priestly office as to satisfy the requirements of those to be recon- 
ciled.—ra xpd¢ tov bedv] with regard to the affairs of God, or: with regard to 
the cause of God. Comp. v.1; Rom. xy. 17.—iddcxeo#a] middle voice.— 
tov Aaov] of the people (of Israel, xiii. 12), see on ver. 16.—The idea of the 
high-priesthood of Christ here first comes out in this epistle. From iv. 14 
onwards it is unfolded in detail. It is disputed, however, at what point 
our author thought of the high-priestly office of Christ as beginning, 
whether even on eafth, with His death on the cross,> or only after the return to 
the Father’; in such wise that, according to the view of the author, the 
offering of His own body upon the earth, and the entering with His own 
blood into the heavenly sanctuary, is to be regarded only as the inaugu- 
ration of Christ to His high-priestly dignity, this dignity itself, however, 
beginning only with the moment when Christ, in accordance with Ps. ex. 
1, sat down at the right hand of-God the Father, Heb. viii. 1.6 It is cer- 
tainly undeniable that the author in the course of his epistle very strongly 
accentuates the high-priesthood of Christ (comp. v. 9 f., vi. 19 f., vii. 24-26, 
vill. 4, ix. 24). But the polemic against readers who thought they could 
not dispense with the ritual of the Jewish sacrifice of atonement for the 


nareil sujet en s’imposant un silence absolu 8 Luther, Grotius, Bhme, Bleek, Stein, de 
J) Pp 


sur un principe, qui était, A vrai dire, le 
centre de son activité apostolique.” 

1Chrysostom: ri éote kata mavta; éTéxOn, 
byaly, erpadhny, qvénOn, Erabe Tavta amep ExpHr, 
TéX0s avéBavev. Theodoret: ‘Onoliws yap quiv 
kat tTpopyjs petéAaBe Kai mévov wméuerve Kai 
nOvunoe Kal edaxpuce Kai Oavatov Katedééato. 

2Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, De- 
litasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
820; Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, ai. 


Wette, Tholuck, Woerner [after Peshito, 
Arabic, and Ethiopie versions]. 

4Owen, Bengel, Cramer, Storr, Stuart, Eb- 
rard, Delitzsch, Riehm, p. 830; Alford, Moll, 
Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann. 

5So Cramer, Winzer, de sacerdotis officio, 
quod Christo tribuitur in ep. ad Hebr., Lips. 
1825, Comment. I. p. vi. sq.; de Wette, De- 
litzsech, Alford, and others. 

®So Bleek and Kurtz, after the precedent 


CHAP ir by, 1S. 445 


attainment of salvation, naturally led him to insist with emphasis on the 
superiority of Christ as the heavenly High Priest over the Jewish high 
priests as the merely earthly ones. Since now, on the other side, it is 
equally undeniable that the author places the voluntary sacrificial death of 
Christ, and the entering with His blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies, 
—as the two inseparable acts of the same proceeding,—in parallel with 
the slaying of the sacrificial victim, and the entering of the earthly high 
priest with the sacrificial blood into the earthly Holy of Holies, and looks 
upon the sins of men as completely expiated by the sacrificial death of 
Christ itself (comp. i. 14 f., vii. 27, ix.11-14 26, 29, x. 10, 12, 14, xiii. 12), 
there can be no room for doubt, that according to the mind of our author 
the investiture of Christ with the high-priestly dignity had already begun 
on earth, from the time of His death; and the representation of mankind 
in the presence of God is to be thought of as the continued administration 
of the high-priestly office already entered upon. So in substance also 
Riehm (comp. the detailed discussion by this writer, Lehrbegr. des 
Hebraerbr. p. 466-481); although it is certainly not in accordance with 
the view of the writer of the epistle, when Riehm afterwards (like Hof- 
mann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 68 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes a distinction is to be 
made between Christ as High Priest and Christ as High Priest after the man- 
ner of Melchisedec, in that he represents Christ as having become the former 
by virtue of that which He did during the days of His flesh, as well as on 
His entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and the latter only by 
virtue of His exaltation to God, where He ever liveth to make interces- 
sion for us. 

Ver. 18. Elucidatory justification of iva édejuov yévytac x.7.A., and by 
means thereof corroborative conclusion to the last main assertion : OgeAev 
Kata Tdvta Toic adeAgoic ouowfjvac. Christ, namely, became qualified for 
having compassion and rendering help, inasmuch as He experienced in 
His own person the temptations, the burden of which pressed upon the 
brethren He came to redeem. Comp. iv. 15, 16—é» }] equivalent to é 
Toor ore (comp. John xvi. 30: év roitw, propter hoc), literally: upon the 
ground of (the fact) that, in that, i.e. inasmuch as, or because. The inter- 
pretation “ wherein,” or “in which province,” ? with which construction 
an év toit» corresponding to the év © has to be supplied before divara., 


and éyv » itself is connected with réxovfev or with repacfeic, or else by the 
resolving of the participle into the tempus finitum is connected in like 
measure with both verbs, is to be rejected; not, indeed, because in that 
case the aorist érafev must have been employed (Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
II. 1, p. 892, 2 Aufl.), nor because the plural év oi¢ must have been placed 
(Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 320, note),—for 
only slight modifications of the sense would result in this way, the sub- 


stance of the statement itself remaining untouched,—but in reality for the 


of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting [Whitby], on Rom. viii. 3, p. 93. 

Griesbach, Opusc. II. p. 436 sq.; Schulz, p. 83 f., * Luther, Casaubon, Valekenaer, Fritzsche, 

and others. l.c. p. 94, note; Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Woer- 
1 Comp. Bernhardy, Synt., p. 211: Fritzsche ner, and others. 


446 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


reason that the thought thus resulting would be unsuitable. For Christ’s 
capacity for conferring sympathy and help would then be restricted within 
the too narrow bounds of like conditions of suffering and temptations in 
the case of Himself and His earthly brethren. Bleek, too, understands év 
@ in the ordinary signification: “ wherein,” but then—after the example 
of Chr. Fr. Schmid—takes the words év @ rézovfev as a kind of adverbial 
nearer defining to aiti¢ reipacbeic : “ Himself tempted in that which He 
suffered,” 7. e. Himself tempted in the midst of His sufferings. So like- 
wise more recently Alford: “for, having been Himself tempted in that 
which He suffered.” Against this, however, the violence of the linguistic 
expression is decisive, since recpacbeic yap avtic év Toi¢ mafjuacwv, or ScMe- 
thing similar, would have been much more simply and naturally written. 
—The emphasis rests not upon rézovfev (Hofmann), but upon abréc 
mecpacbeic, inasmuch as not the rdoyev in and of itself, but the racyew 
in a definite state, is to be brought into relief: because He Himself suffered 
as one tempted, i.e. because His suffering was combined with temptations. 
aito¢ meipacbeic, however, was designedly placed at the end, in order to 
gain thereby a marked correspondence to the following tote re:pafouévore. 
—divara] not a note of the inclination (Grotius: potest auxiliari pro potest 
moveri ad auxiliandum, and similarly many others), but of the possibility — 
toi¢ metpalouévorc] a characteristic of toi¢ adedgoic, ver. 17. The participle 
present, since the state of temptation of the human brethren is one still 
continuing.—fonbjoar] to come to the help, sc. in that He entirely fills with 
His Spirit the suffering ones, whose necessities He has become acquainted 
with as a result of His own experience. 


Notes By AMERICAN EpITor. 
XLIV. Vv. 1+. 


(a) These vérses contain an exhortation founded upon vy. 4-14 of the preceding 
chapter and should, properly, be joined with that chapter. The exhortation is, 
in substance, that which we find in all parts of the Epistle—the one great exhor- 

tation which the writer presses upon the readers, and for the purpose of giving 
~ force to which he writes the letter—on the negative side, not to apostatize from 
Christianity to Judaism ; on the positive side, to hold fast their Christian faith and 
confession to the end. Sometimes, the positive side is more prominently presented, 
as it is here; sometimes the negative side is emphasized; sometimes they are 
both set forth. But the substance of the thought and the end in view are always 
the same.—(b) dca rovro points back to the whole passage i. 4-14. That passage is 
thus made the ground of dei mpocéyevv «7.2, The latter words are, again, through 
7 4p of ver. 2 founded upon what is said in vy. 2 ff. These verses, however, con- 
tain—so far as their statement as to the two systems or revelations is concerned— 
nothing more than has been suggested in chap. i., namely, that the revelation 
which has come through the Lord must, for this very reason, be superior to that 
which came through angels. But in connection with the repeated expression of 
this thought, reference is made to the greater danger resulting from neglecting 
the greater system. The introduction of the yap sentence after the dia tovro—as 


NOTES. 447 


considered both in the repetition of the main thought and the addition of the 
special reason,—and the consequent resting of the dei «7.4. on both what 
precedes and what follows, is in accordance with one of the peculiar charac- 
teristics of the Pauline style—(c) Though there is no special emphasis to be laid 
upon 7uac, the reference in the word is plainly to the readers as those who have 
heard and accepted the Christian revelation. They are reminded of the duty— 
the moral necessity (Je?)—of giving more earnest attention to what had been 
heard, than would have been demanded if the new system were only like the old. 
Trapappvouev is rightly explained by Liinem. It means to be carried by as on a 
flowing stream, floated past, and thus to drift away, as R. V. The verb is appro- 
priately chosen as suggesting the idea of indifference or want of thoughtfulness 
which is opposed to tepiocotépwg mpooé err, 

(d) BéBacog (ver. 2) seems to be immediately related in thought with éAaBev évd, 
wot, and tapaxon mis-hearing, “the subjective listless hearing or inattention” 
(Liinem.), may, not improbably, be added to rapaaore transgression in connection 
with the idea conveyed in tapappvauev.—(e) The word owrypiac has, in this place, 
a peculiar sense, which is both demanded and indicated by the context. It means 
not salvation, but a salvation or a system of salvation. The rendering of the word by 
salvation, A. V., R. V., is likely to mislead the English reader.—(j') The contrast 
between the two systems is set forth, in vv. 2, 3, by 6c’ ayyéAwy AaAnheic¢ and Aaheiodat 
dia Tov kupiov. The writer, throughout the entire epistle, presents the same idea 
which he expresses here ;—namely, that there are two revelations, both of which 
alike come from God, but one of which is made through angels (or Moses), while 
the other is given through Christ. The superiority of the latter to the former, 
accordingly, is not in the originating source of the system, but in the instrumental 
agent employed. 

(g) The argument against the Pauline authorship which Liinem., Alf., Blk., 
aud others find in the words ind tv dkovodvTur ei¢ judg éBeBaodyn, deserves 
serious consideration. These words show that the writer places himself, with the 
readers, among those to whom the knowlege of the N. T. revelation had not come 
directly from Jesus, but only from those who had heard Him. Paul, on the other 
hand, claims with regard to himself, in Gal. i.11 ff, that he had derived the 
Gospel immediately from Christ. The only ways of reconciling the two state- 
ments, as being made by the same auther, are either (1) to suppose that he uses , 
the “communicative we,” or (2) that, while, in Gal., he is speaking of the great 
impartation of the Gospel truth in preparation for his apostleship and ministry, 
he is, in this passage, referring only to the fact, that, not having been associated 
with Jesus when He was on the earth, as the other apostles were, he, like the 
readers, was obliged to depend on their testimony for his acquaintance with many 
of the things which Jesus did and said. To the former supposition Liinem. very 
properly objects, that “ what a writer of a letter says to his readers by means of 
an avaxkoivwore is always of such a nature as to be likewise true of himself.” With 
regard to the latter supposition, it cannot be affirmed that it is impossible, but it 
may justly be declared in a high degree improbable. 


XLV. Vv. 5-8. 


(a) At ver. 5 the writer begins the more indirect argument in proof of the 
exaltation of Christ, as the instrumental agent in the N. T. revelation, above the 


448 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


angels. His thought has been understood in two different ways, according as the 
reference in vv. 6 ff. has been supposed to be to Christ, or to man. If the former 
view is taken, the fact that the oixovuévy péndovoa, 7. e. the aiav uéA2ov or the Mes- 
sianic period, is subjected, according to God’s plan, to Christ, is made the ground 
of the assertion of His superiority. He was, indeed, for a time made lower than 
the angels, but this was only for the purpose of the accomplishment of His great 
work. At the consummation of the work, the glory belonging to Him in con- 
nection with it began to be manifested, and it will be manifested hereafter in its 
fullness. On this interpretation, the thought centres upon Christ throughout. 
If the latter view is adopted, on the other hand, the writer presents the oixovy. 
péX2. as subjected, not to angels, but to man. Man, indeed, is not yet elevated to 
the dominion designed for him, but the exaltation has already been given to the 
representative man, Jesus Christ, and He is to lead his brethren—the sons of God 
among mankind, of whose nature He has partaken—to the attainment of it in the 
future. ‘The main purpose of the passage is the same, in whichever of the two 
ways it is explained. But, in the latter case, the line of thought is somewhat 
more indirect than it is in the former. The considerations which favor the latter 
view are the following:—(1) The verses quoted from the Psalm refer, in the 
original, not to Christ, but to man. (2) The later verses of the chapter speak of 
the exaltation of man as the end accomplished by the work and exaltation of 
Christ. (3) It gives the simplest and most natural explanation of the introduction 
of the thought of Christ’s assuming the nature of man and undertaking to help 
man. (4) It best accounts for the fact that the name of Christ is not introduced 
in ver. 5. On the contrary, the former view is favored by the following considera- 
tions :—(1) that Christ is made prominent throughout the entire passage; and (2) that 
the order of words in ver. 9 is not "Ijoovv dé Tov x.7.A. B2éropev, (as if the writer 
would call attention to the realization of the fact in the case of Jesus as having 
already been witnesged, though not as yet seen in the experience of mankind uni- 
versally), but tov dé... yAaT~wu. BAEropuev "Iyooiv (as if the name Jesus were only 
added without emphasis, for the purpose, simply, of designating the person who 
had already, in the preceding verses, been spoken of as the one who was made 
lower than the angels). The force of this last objection to the reference of vv. 
6 ff. to man is insisted upon by Liinemann and others. But it does not seem to be 
conclusive, because the object of the writer may have been, not to say: we do not 
yet see man exalted to his destined glory and dominion, but we do see Jesus thus 
exalted; but to say: we do not yet see man, indeed, exalted, but we do see the 
representative man, namely, Jesus, crowned, etc. Now if this was the author’s de- 
sign, and if he desired to express his thought in the exact phraseology of the 
Psalm, it is difficult to see how he could have adopted’ any better course than the 
one which we find him to have taken. 

(b) The reference of the words, as used by the Psalmist, is evidently to the 
honor put upon man by his Creator, and the dominion given to him over the 
other creatures on the earth—the sheep and oxen, the beasts and birds and fishes 
(vv. 7,8 of the Psalm). The Psalmist is contemplating the glory of God’s power 
and being as manifested in the starry heavens, and is filled with wonder that He 
should have so “visited” man and been “mindful of him,” even making him 
“but little lower than God,” and subjecting all things to him. The writer of the 
epistle transfers the thought to the aidv y£//0v, and to the dominion of man, or of 
Christ, in that period. He quotes from the LXX, and incidentally, thus, brings 


NOTES. 449 


in a reference to a temporary condition of Christ, or man, below the angels, which 
is not to continue, since the coming age is, by God’s appointment, not to be sub- 
ordinated to the angels, but to him. It is doubtful whether the writer supposed 
the Psalmist to have intended, in his words, to make any reference either to the 
aiov “éAAwv or to the Messianic King. The words were suited to express his own 
thought respecting the point in hand, and he used them for the purpose for which, 
in the highest and best sense, the Old Testament, in all its parts and words, had 
been Divinely prepared. 

(c) With respect to individual words and phrases in these verses, the following 
points may be noticed:—1. The explanation given by Liinem. of ayyéAore as used 
without the article, and of epi 7¢ Aadovuev as equivalent to “which is the subject 
of our discourse (our epistle),”’ is to be adopted as correct. 2. The indefiniteness 
in the use of t¢ and Tov, in ver. 6, is characteristic of the writer of this epistle. He 
seems, in general, to be less careful to present the name of the O. T. author whose 
words he cites, than he is to give the words themselves. That such words are in 
the O. T., which was God’s earlier revelation and which is so reverenced by the 
readers, is the point of all importance to his mind. The use, in different passages, 
of the different phrases: “a certain one says,” “the Holy Spirit says,” “he hath 
said somewhere,” “it is witnessed,” “the exhortation which says,” may be some- 
times accidental and sometimes determined by special reasons; but the same de- 
sign, to bring out the thought for its own sake, and as coming from God, not from 
any particular prophet or writer, is manifest, whatever may be the form of ex- 
pression. 3. Spay tt, This expression is, apparently, used here in a different 
- sense from that of the corresponding phrase in the original Psalm. The meaning 
of the Psalmist is, as given in R. V., “Thou hast made him but little lower than 
God.” The dignity and exaltation of man are thus set forth, as they are, also, in 
the following clause: “and crownest him with glory and honor.” But here, the 
thought must be that of man’s inferiority, as is evident from the reference to Jesus 
in ver. 9. The words, as here used, may refer to degree or to time, a little, some 
little in measure, or for a little time. As between these two meanings, the former 
is favored by the fact that, in the original passage, the idea is that of measure or 
degree; and, though the writer of the epistle might, in employing the passage for 
his special purpose, change the thought from but little to some little, he was less 
likely to give an altogether new sense to the words. But, on the other hand, the 
interpretation of the phrase as meaning for a little time is exactly suited to the ap- 
plication which is made of the clause to Jesus in ver. 9; it is, also, fitted to the 
course of thought, in the chapter, respecting man, if the primary reference of vy. 
6-8 is to him, and not to Christ ; and it likewise accords with the suggestion which 
arises from oi7w of ver. 8. Liinem., Blk., Grimm, de W., Calv. and others adopt 
this view. 4. yap of ver. 8 is regarded by Winer, p. 447, as giving the proof that 
there is nothing which was not put in subjection to Him, and, therefore, indirectly 
of ver. 5: that the world to come is also subjected to Him. This case, however, is 
one of the strongest which we find in the N.T., as showing that this conjunction 
was occasionally used by the writers of its different books in the sense of namely, in- 
deed, that is, certainly. The connection with ver. 5 is remote, not to say, harsh. 
That with ver. 8a, on the other hand, is difficult, and involves some degree of 
tautology, if yap is regarded as argumentative. But if ydp is taken as explicative, 
this latter connection is most simple, and is just in accordance with what might be 
gxpected :—God is declared by the Psalmist to have put all things under him, 

29 


450 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


This means, certainly, that there is nothing which is not put under him. We do 
not, as yet, however, see this grand result secured in its completeness. But we do 
see it begun and the assurance of the end given, in that we behold Jesus crowned 
with glory. The progress of the thought may thus be regarded as proving this 
sense of ydp (as Liinem. also takes it) to be the true one. 


XLVI. Vv. 9-16. 


(a) With reference to the difficulties in the construction of the last portion of 
ver. 9, we may notice: 1. that, for the reasons suggested by Liinem., the words 
dia TO TaOnua Tov Gavatov are not to be connected with 7AatTwpévov, but with 
éorepavepnévov; 2. that, with the latter connection, these words have a peculiar 
and marked emphasis—the author must have intended to make especially promi- 
nent, at this point, the ground of Christ’s exaltation to glory ; 3. that, inasmuch 
as this was evidently his intention, the further explanation of His suffering of 
death in relation to its purpose as bearing upon mankind, might naturally be 
added; 4. that, for the sake of not breaking the close union between dia rt. rad. 
and éoregav., and of not interfering with the primary emphasis on the former of 
these two expressions, and the secondary on the latter, this desired addition might 
be separated by éoregav. from the words to which it immediately belonged ; 5. 
that the relation of Christ to men—and in the way of delivering them from the 
fear and power of death by His own sufferings and dying—which is presented in 
the following verses, is developed out of the comprehensive statement of this 
verse, and thus demands, for the greatest clearness of the thought, the placing of. 
the words: ‘that he should taste of death for every man,’ where they are, i. e., 
at the end of ver. 9. These considerations render it almost certain that the é7we¢ 
clause belongs with wa@jua (as if he had said: on account of that suffering of 
death, which He suffered in order that, etc.). The words of this clause, it may be 
added, are a plaifi declaration of the universality of the atonement. 

(b) Ver. 10 sets forth the fitness that Jesus should have had this experience 
appointed to Him by God. The fact of this fitness is developed and established 
in vy. 11.ff. As men, and not angels, are the sons of God who are to be brought 
to glory, there was a need that He who was to be the leader of the great company, 
and the representative man, should partake of their human nature, and should 
‘pass through their experience. He must be perfected as a leader and Saviour 
through sufferings. reAeaoae does not, probably, convey the idea of bringing to 
perfection with respect to moral character, but in relation to His office —Liinem. 
says it is equivalent to dé6&y . . . orepavovcdat, but this is doubtful. 

(c) That the participle ayayévra refers to God, not to Christ, is proved by the 
considerations which Liinem., presents in his note. The explanation of the aorist 
tense is to be found in the fact, that the whole work of the ayevv is conceived of 
as, in a sense, centered in the reAe@oa of Christ. This gathering up of the results 
of Christ’s death and glorification into the one fact of His death and glorification, 
is characteristic of the Pauline mode of thought. Comp. for a similar centering of 
all results of evil in the first transgression of Adam, Rom. vy. 12.—R. V., text 
renders ayay. in bringing—so also A. V. R. V., marg. has having brought. The 
rendering bringing, as he did, which is suggested by Alford, seems perhaps more 
exactly to suit the aorist participle—(d) The word apyvyév is found twice in this 
epistle, in this verse and xii. 2. In the latter passage, it is explained by Grimm 


~~ = 


NOTES. 451 


(Lex. N. T.), as qui in aliqua re praeit,and he adds the words: eoque modo exemplum 
edit. It is used by Plutarch, Isocrates and others, as Bleek shows, with reference 
to the originator of a family as the leader of his descendants. It is, also, employed 
as equivalent in meaning to airwc, This last sense is given to it here by 
Liinem., Bleek, Grimm, and others. The connection of thought in this chap- 
ter, and also in chap. xii., seems, however, to point to the fact that Christ not only 
is the author of salvation or faith for His brethren, but that He is so by being their 
leader—the one who went through their experience to the glorious consummation, 
and thus became the first, and, as it were, the representative of them all. The 
choice of the word, instead of aitvoc, we may believe to have been determined by 
the desire of the writer to bring out this compound idea of cause and leader, 
which aito¢ would not have suggested.—(e) Vy. 11-138 do not appear to be merely 
subsidiary and, as it were, parenthetical, as Liinem., regards them. They form 
a part of the proof given of ver. 10, though, as compared with vv. 14, 15, a sub- 
ordinate part. In developing the idea of the fitness, that, in His plan of bring- 
ing His sons to glory, God should perfect the apy7yoc through sufferings, two 
thoughts needed to be presented and confirmed—namely, that the apy7yo¢ was a 
son, as the viot for whom He was to accomplish the great result were sons, and 
that, in order to have their position fully, and be a leader for them, it was necessary 
for Him to become a partaker of their human nature, and thus to become subject 
to death. These two thoughts might, not improbably, have been introduced codr- 
dinately by ordinary writers, as two grounds for the statement or suggestion of 
ver. 10. But this author, who constantly manifests the Pauline influence in his 
manner of writing, introduces the first and less important thought by yap, con- 
necting it immediately with odode vioic, and then afterwards, in ver. 14, he 
brings in the second thought as an inference (oiv) suggested by the words ra 
xaiia of ver. 18. The immediate and grammatical connection is, in this case, 
accordingly, as so often in Paul’s epistles, different from the logical connection.— 
(f) We find a use of O. T. passages in vv. 12 f. similar to that which has been 
noticed in ch. i., and ia vv. 6-8 of this chapter. The change in the reference of 
7a racdia, by which it is made to designate, not the children of the prophet, as in 
the O. T., but the children of God, is, also, noticeable, and finds its explanation in 
the way in which the author viewed the O. T. Such a change was, at the most, 
a sacrifice of the letter for the more full and perfect setting forth of the Divine 
truth. The O. T. was filled with foreshadowings of Christ and the new system. 
(g) The movement in the thought from vy. 11 ff. to what follows is evidently 
through ver. 14a towards vy. 146, 15—the emphasis being on the idea expressed 
in the latter. .The representative is crowned with glory and honor on account of 
his suffering of death, because this was the course by which the end which God 
had in view—the deliverance of men from the fear of death—might be accom- 
plished. To this end, accordingly, Christ becomes a son, in the human sense, and 
partakes of flesh and blood.—(h) katapy7joy is used here in a sense similar to that 
which we find in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 26, i.e. of bringing to nought (R. V.) or destroying 
the power of the enemy to do injury with respect to the thing in question. Here 
the devil is deprived of the power of death so far as the persons mentioned, the 
viot or radia, are concerned.—(i) The power of death, here spoken of, is appar- 
ently that connected with fear. This verse may, perhaps, be regarded as throwing 
light on some passages in Paul’s writings, where death is referred to as the conse- 
yuence of sin, and as showing that to the Pauline thought death, as thus used, 


452 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


always carried with it this idea, and did not mean simply the separation of the 
soul from the body. However this may be, the power of death is here ascribed to 
the devil, as we cannot doubt, because he was the one who introduced sin into the 
race, through the temptation at the beginning, and death is the result of sin. See 
Rom. y. 12, 1 Cor. xy. 56, and other passages.—(j ) dovdeiag seems to be deter- 
mined in its meaning by the earlier words of the clause. It does not denote the 
bondage to the law of decay and death, the bondage of corruption, Rom. viii. 21, but 
the bondage to the fear of death as a terrible and hopeless evil—(k) The imme- 
diate connection of ver. 16 through yap is, manifestly, with vv. 14, 15, as still 
further explanatory of what is there said. It seems, however, to be an unnecessary 
addition, so far as this object alone is concerned, and to be even repetitious, in its 
idea, of what has been already brought out with sufficient fullness. It is not 
improbable, therefore, that the writer was led to write these words, not so much 
for the purpose of adding a new point or argument, as of calling attention at the 
end, as he had done at the beginning (ver. 5), tothe fact that the oixouyévy péAAovea 
was, in God’s plan, subjected not to angels, but to men. The use of the words 
“seed of Abraham,” instead of men, is most simply explained in accordance with 
Liinemann’s supposition: the author writes thus just because he had only to de 
with born Jews as the readers of his epistle. That there is a conflict between the 
statements of this passage, and of this verse, and Paul’s declaration in Col. i. 20, 
has been maintained by Liinemann and some others. But when we take the 
different passages in Paul’s writings, which relate to the work of redemption, into 
careful consideration, it can hardly be doubted that his including of the angels in 
the aroxata/Aagac of Col. i. 20 is, in no sense, such as to cover the ground of this 
author in this chapter. Paul does not regard the angels as among the sons of 
God whom Christ leads to salvation and glory through His sufferings, and into 
the experiences of whose nature Christ enters for this end. 


XLVI. Vv. 17-18. 


(a) The elose Gorrespondence between these verses and those at the end of the 
fourth chapter will not fail to be observed. This correspondence isseen: 1. in the 
ideas and expressions of these corresponding verses in the two chapters; 2. in the 
connection of the verses, in each case, with the preceding context; 3. in the fact 
that the word dpyepev¢ is found in each, whereas neither this word nor any sug- 
gestion of the idea of the High-priesthood of Jesus is introduced anywhere else in 
the first and second, or again in the third and fourth chapters, (iii. 1 forms no 
proper exception, see note on that verse). It can scarcely be questioned, it would 
seem, that when a writer, who is so careful with respect to the artistic arrangement 
of his work as the author of this epistle is, has two such passages in two correspond- 
ing places, he means to make them parallel to each other. When we observe 
also, that the High-priesthood of Christ is the subject of the second half of the 
epistle (v. 1—xii. 29), and that this second part is that‘on which the author 
dwells with greater fullness and emphasis, we may believe that, in these verses, 
he intends to give a hint or foreshadowing, at the close of each subdivision of the 
first section of his work, of that which is to be the great thought of its second and 
most important division. An artistic arrangement of this character is quite foreign 
to the style of Paul in his thirteen epistles—(b) As to the similarities between 
ii. 17, 18 and iv. 14-16, the following points may be noticed: 1. The use of the 


NOTES. 453 


same words, in the case of apyvepets, rerpagouar, Boyfjoar (Bofberav), juowbpvac (kal? 
éuotdryta), 2. The general correspondence in the thought, where the words are 
unlike, as e. g. “the merciful high-priest in things pertaining to God,” as compared 
with “approaching the throne of grace (through him) that we may find mercy ” ; 
“in that he has suffered being tempted, he is able,” etc., as compared with 
“tempted in all points like as we are;” “he becomes a merciful and faithful high- 
priest through being made like unto his brethren,” as compared with “he is able 
to sympathize with our infirmities because he was tempted like ourselves.” The 
few differences in expression and in the minor details of the verses are only such as 
might be expected in a careful rhetorical writer, who would avoid mechanical 
repetition, and who, in the latter case, is drawing nearer to the thoughts and 
expressions of the second part of the epistle. 


454 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. "Ijootv] Reeepta: Xprotdv "Incovv, Rightly rejected by Griesb. 
Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. For against it stands the pre- 
ponderating authority of A B C* D* M x, 17, 34, al., many vss. and Greek as well 
as Latin Fathers, and not less the usus loguendi of the epistle, since Xpiord¢ ‘Iycon¢ 
is found nowhere else therein, Ijoov¢ Xpiordé¢ only [vi. 20, with D* E* It.] x. 10, 
xiii. 8 [20, with D* 17, al.], 21; quite commonly, on the other hand, the simple 
"Inoove (ii. 9, iv. 14, vi. 20, vil. 22, x. 19, xii. 2, 24, xiii. 12, 20) or the simple 
Xpworéc (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, vi. 1, ix. 11, 14, 28, xi. 26)—Ver. 2. év 0A 76 oikw avrow] 
Instead thereof, Tisch. 1 and 2 reads merely év T@ oikw avrov, But for the 
deletion of 62 the authority of B, Sahid. Erp. Ambr. does not suffice. 62 is 
defended not only by AC DE K L Mx, Vulg. al., but also by the consideration 
that it forms a constituent part of the passage Num. xii. 7, to which the writer 
has respect, and the complete formula év 6A 7@ oikw avTov is, on account of its 
repetition in ver. 5, already presupposed for ver. 2.—Ver. 3. otto¢ dé6&y¢] Elz. 
Matthaei, Bloomfield: dé6&7¢ ovroc, Against A BC D E y, 37, 47, al., It. Chrys. 
Transposition for bringing into marked relief the opposition oftog rapa Moiajv. 
—Ver. 4. In place of the Recepta ta tavra, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 
read only tavra, To be preferred, not merely on account of the strong attesta- 
tion by A B C* D* E* K M yg, al. mult., Chrys. ms., but also because the notion 
of the universe, which ta tavra@ would contain, does nqt suit the connection — 
Ver. 6. In place of éavrep, Lachm. (this editor, however, only in the edit. 
stereot.; in the larger edition he adds wep in brackets) and Tisch. have adopted, 
after B D* E* M y* 17, the mere é4v. The author, however, is fond of the 
fuller éd4v7ep (comp. ver. 14, yi. 3), and here it has preponderating testimonies 
(A C D*** E** K L y*** Lucif. Cal.) in its favor—péype tésovg BeBaiay xara- 
oxywuev] Instead of this, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads merely katdoyouev. But, for the 
omission of the words péype TtéAeug BeBaiav (already condemned by Mill, Prolegg. 
1208, and more recently by Delitzsch and Alford), the authority of B, Aeth. Lucif. 
Ambr. does not suffice; and as a gloss from ver. 14 they can hardly be regarded, 
inasmuch as, with regard to the object the author has in view, they are just as 
little without significance here as there. See,moreovet, the observations of Reiche, 
p- 19 sq.—Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf. have é7eipacdv we oi 
matépeg vuav, édokiuacayv pe. - Defended also by Reiche. But the only 
accredited -reading is éveipacav oi ratépec iuov év dokipacia, Already 
preferred by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. 
éreipacay, in place of éreipacay ye, is demanded by A BC D* E* y* 17, It. 
Copt. Lucif.; €v.doxeuacia in place of édoxivacay ye, by A BC D* E M xX* 78, 
137, It. Copt. Lucif. Clem. Al. protrept. c. 9, 2 84, Didym.—Ver. 10. Elz. Matthaei, 
Scholz, Bloomf. Reiche: +7 yeved éxeivy. More correctly, after A B D* Mx, 
6, 17, al., Vulg. Clem. Did. Bengel, Bohme, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford 
(recommended also by Griesb.): 77 yeved tabty. Deviating from the LXX., 


CHAP. da: 1: 455 


the author chose rary, inorder to make the bearing of the passage upon the 
readers the more palpable—Ver. 13. The Recepta ti¢ && bpov (adopted by 
Tisch. 8) is, with Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford, al., 
to be transposed into é£ uv rx¢, in accordance with B D E K L, 46, 48, Theo- 
doret, Damase. al. By means of the transposition, the person of the readers, in 
opposition to the fathers in the wilderness, comes out more emphatically, and 
more in accordance with the context.—Ver. 14. Elz. Matthaei, Bloomf.: yey éva- 
wev Tov Xpcorov] But the important attestation by ABCD EH MY, al, 
Vulg. Clar. Germ. Cyr. Damase. Lucif. Hilar. Hier. Ambr. Vigil. Taps. decides in 
favor of the order of the words tov Xprotov yeyovaper; accepted by Griesb. 
Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Alford, al. 


Vv. 1-6. Even above Moses is Christ exalted. By so much higher than 
Moses does He stand, as the son exercising authority over his own house 
has precedence over the servant of the house. This new dogmatic con- 
sideration, to which the discourse now advances, was indeed already con- 
tained implicite as the minus, in the preceding argument as the majus ; ib 
must, however, still be separately insisted on, inasmuch as, in addition to 
the angels as the suprahuman agents (Vermittler) in connection with the 
founding of the Old Covenant, Moses, as the human agent (Vermitiler) in 
the founding of the same, could not remain unmentioned. Appropri- 
ately to the subject, however, the author treats of this new point of com- 
parison only with brevity, blending the same with the exhortation, 
derived from that which precedes, to cleave firmly unto the end to Christ 
and the Christian hope ; and then, from ver. 7 forward, further developing 
this exhortation in detail,—in the form of a parallel instituted between 
the people of God of the present time, ¢.¢. the Christians, and the people 
of God of Moses’ time,—in their interest, with even a warning impres- 
siveness. 

On Vy. 1-6, comp. Carl. Wilh. Otto, der Apostel und Hohepriester unsres 
Bekenntnisses. An Exegetical Study on Heb. iii. 1-6, Leipz. 1861, 8vo." 

Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-6, see Note XLVIII., pages 470-472. "Odev] refers 
back to the total characterization of Christ given in chaps. i. ii. [XLVIIT 


1 This writer finds (comp. p. 96), by dint of a 
long extended chain of arbitrary assertions 
and erroneous presuppositions, the absolutely 
impossible sense in the words: “(Ver. 1) 
From this (ii. 10-18), beloved brethren, who, 
delivered from death, are presented a sacri- 
fice to God, and have your right of citizenship 
in heayen, perceive that the Ambassador and 
High Priest, who in His own person has 
borne our confession to the heavenly goal, and 
as mediator continually introduces into 
heaven, namely Jesus (ver. 2), is one en- 
trusted (an organ of confidence) of Him who 
made Him (such), 7. e. (comp. p. 65) called 
Him into existence as Jesus, as was also 
Moses in the house of God, 7. e. in the limita- 
tion and subordination, as this was presup- 
posed by his position in the house of God. 


(Ver. 3) For (comp. p. 87) greater glory (i. e. 
higher position of power) has been vouchsafed 
to this man than to Moses, in which measure, 
as the house (sc. of God), so has He who has 
fitted it up, greater honor (sic!). (Ver. 4) For 
every house is fitted up by some one (but to 
correspond to all its requirements, no one is 
able); He, however, who has fitted it up with 
all things (se. as Jesus the house of God, for 
time and eternity) is omnipotent, is of divine 
nature. (Ver. 5) And Moses, indeed, was 
trustworthy in all his house, as a servant, to 
testify what was to be revealed (ver. 6): Jesus, 
however, as the Christ (comp. p. 90), trust- 
worthy as Son (se. of God) over His (se. God’s) 
house. Whose (sc. God’s) house we are and 
remain, if at any rate we retain the joyfulness 
and boasting of hope to the end.” 


456 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


a.] Wherefore, i.e. seeing that it stands in such wise with Christ, His 
nature and disposition. As regards its contents, 6@ev is unfolded by the 
Tov ardoToAoy kai apylepéa THE duoAoyiac Huov immediately following, inasmuch 
as by these designations the preceding total-characterization of Christ is 
recapitulated in its two main features (vid. infra). For if the author says: 
“Therefore regard well Jesus, the axdécrodoc kai apyepede rie dpuodhoyiac 
juav!” that is only a Greek form of expression for the thought: “ There- 
fore, because Jesus is the azéatodoc Kai apytepede Tc buodoyiac Hudv, regard 
Him well! ”’—dadeAgoi ayior] belongs together. With Michaelis, to separate 
the two words from each other by acomma, would be permissible only if 
by the isolation thereof a gradation were obtained. But this is not the 
case; since then only two relations parallel to each other, namely, on the 
one side the relation of the readers to the author (dadeAgoi), and on the 
other side their relation to the non-Christian world (ayov), would be ren- 
dered separately prominent.—dadeAgo/] designates the readers not as 
brethren of Christ (so with an unwarranted appeal to ii. 11, 12, 17, Peirce, 
Michaelis, Carpzov, Pyle; comp. also Delitzsch, according to whom this 
is at least also to be thought of), nor does it express the brotherly relation 
in the national sense, 7. e. the descent from the Jewish people common to 
the author and readers (Chr. Fr. Schmid), but has reference to the spirit- 
ual, ideal brotherly relationship, into which author and recipients of the 
letter have been brought towards each other by the common bond of 
Christianity.—xAjoews éxovpaviov pétoyor] ye who are partakers of a heavenly 
calling. This second direct address—to which Grotius needlessly supplies 
“ nobiscum ’’—strengthens the former, and the two forms of address ex- 
plain the ground of the obligation to the xaravoei, by pointing to the 
reader’s state of grace. k«Ajovce stands actively. It denotes the call or 
invitation, which God! has by Christ given to the readers, to participation 
in the Messianic kingdom. This calling, however, is termed ézovpdvcoc, 
either because the blessings, the possession of which it promises, are exist- 
ent, in heaven and of heavenly nature (Grotius, al.), or, what is more 
probable, because they have come to men from heaven [so Owen], where 
God their supreme author has His throne, and whence Christ their pro- 
claimer and procurer (Vermittler) was sent forth. It is possible, however, 
that both references are to be combined: “a calling which proceeds from 
heaven and leads to heaven.” *—karavofeare]| direct your view to Jesus, sc. in 
order to cleave firmly to Him; regard well what He is and what you have 
in Him!—rdv ardorotov Kai apyuepéa tHe dpuodoyiac judv|] [XLVIII b.] the 
Envoy und High Priest of our confession, is comprehended into a unity of 
idea by the article 76v only once placed (“ Him who is azéorodoc and apyee- 
pebe in one person ”’), in connection with which rie éuoAoyiag juov is then 
also most naturally referred in equal degree to both substantives. r17¢ 
bpmoAoyiac uv, however,is not to be resolved into dv duoAoyoduev (Luther, 


1 For God, as everywhere with Paul also, not 2So Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, Bis- 
Christ, as Delitzsch supposes, is thought of as ping, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Heb- 
the cadav, riéerbr. p. 693; Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and others. 


CHAP. Ill. 2. 457 


Cameron, Calov, Wolf, de Wette, Maier, and others; similarly Delitzsch: 
“who is the subject-matter of our confession ; ” and Riehm, Lehrbegr. des 
Hebrierbr. p. 427 f.: “who appertains to our confession ”’), but stands, like 
rior, Gal. i. 23, and éric, Col. i. 5, objectively : of our Christian confession 
(of our evangelical faith). Comp. iv. 14, x. 23; 2 Cor. ix. 193) Dian: vi. 
12,13. [So Calvin, Piscator, Owen (with hesitation), Stuart.] The opposi- 
tion is to the pre-Christian or Mosaic confession, without, however, the 
emphasis, as Kurtz supposes, falling upon juov, which is forbidden by the 
position of the words: The deputed One (sc. of God) for our confession, t. e. 
sent by God (comp. Gal. iv. 4; Matt. x. 40, al.) in order to bring about our 
confession or Christian faith. The signification “mediator,” which Tho- 
luck attaches to the word dréoroAoc, after the example of Braun and 
others, appealing in favor thereof to the authority of Rabbinico-talmudic 
usage, the latter never has. The notion of mediator follows, alike for 
anéoronov as also for dpyepéa, only from the context. By azécrodoy, 
namely, is referred back to the main thought of the last and highest di- 
vine revelation (the Aadeiv), contained in Christ, of which the writer has 
treated i. 1-11. 4; by apycepéa, to the main thought of the reconciliation 
of sinful humanity to God by Christ, then further treated in the second 
chapter. Aptly, therefore, does Bengel distinguish azéorodov and apyiepéa 
as “eum, qui Dei causam apud nos agit” and “ qui nostram causam apud 
Deum agit.” 

Ver. 2. [XLVIII ¢.] The discourse takes a turn, by virtue of a further 
alleging of reasons for the katavogcare, to the comparison of Jesus with 
Moses, in that first of all the relation of parity between the two is brought 
prominently forward. The O. T. passage which the author here has under 
consideration is Num. xii. 7, where Moses is designated by God as faithful 
in all His house.—évra] characterizes the being faithful as an inherent 
property; the sense of a strict present is not to be asserted for the parti- 
ciple (with Seb. Schmidt and Bleek), according to which we should have 
to think only of an exalted Christ ; rather does mordv dvra attach itself as 
well tothe notion Ijcovv tiv ardotodov THC dpohoyiacg nuav as to the notion 
‘Inoovv Tov apyrepéa THE Suoroyiac jpuav; dvta embraces, therefore, equally 
the time from which Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, had appeared 
upon earth, and the time from which He, invested with the high-priestly 
dignity, has returned to the Father, and now continues to fulfill in heaven 
His high-priestly office.—r@ roujoarre avtév] [XLVIII d 1.] Periphrasis 
of God: Him who created Him. Only this sense of the calling forth into 
eristence can the word oveiv have when placed absolutely ; comp. LXX. 
Isa. xvii. 7, xliii. 1, li. 18; Hos. viii. 14; Job xxxv. 10: Ps. xev. 6, cxlix. 2; 
Ecclus. vii. 30, ai. Rightly is this accepted by the early Latin translation 
of the codd. D E (fidelem esse creatori suo), Ambrose (de fide, 3. 11), Vigi- 
lius Tapsensis (contra Varimadum, p. 729), Primasius, Schulz, Bleek, 
Alford, Kurtz, and Hofmann. Contrary to linguistic usage—for an appeal 
cannot be made to 1 Sam. xii. 6 (where roviv (NW) has its ordinary sig- 
nification), and still less to Mark iii. 14 (where a nearer defining is given 
to the verb by means of iva «.7./.), or to Acts 11. 36 (where a double accusa- 


458 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


tive is found)—do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Vatablus, Clarius [Calvin], Cameron, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, 
Bengel, B6hme, Kuinoel, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, 
Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 286 f.), Reuss, Maier, 
Kluge, Moll, M’Caul, Woerner, and the majority, interpret 76 moujoavre 
either by : who appointed Him thereto (sc. Apostle and High Priest), or 
ordained Him thereto; or—what amounts to the same thing—explaining 
the supplementing of a second accusative to woujoavre as unnecessary, by : 
who set Him forth upon the stage of history. Whether, for the rest, the 
author referred the notion of having created to the incarnation of Christ, 
as the above-mentioned early ecclesiastical writers suppose, or to His 
premundane generation as the First-born (cf. 1. 5, 6), which Bleek rightly 
regards as at least possible, cannot be determined.’—é¢ kai Moio7e] se. 
miotoe Fv TO Touwoavte avtév.i—iv bAw TO oikw adtov] does not belong to 
avtév, in such wise that we have, with Calvin, 
Paulus, Bleek, Ebrard, and Hofmann, to enclose o¢ kai Mwioy¢ within 
commas, but it is to be comprehended with ¢ xai Mwivoje (de Wette, 
Kurtz, and the majority). For not only, Num. xii. 7, do the words 
appended: év 62 7@ olxw aitod, stand in special relation to Moses,—so 
that the author might very well derive from that place the same addition 
with the same special reference to Moses,—but also the equal reference 
of év 62 T@ oikw avtov to Christ, as to Moses, would be unsuitable to the 
connection with that which follows, since the author, ver. 5 and ver. 6, 
definitely distinguishes the place occupied by Moses, as the position of a 
servant év 6%» 7 oiky, from the place occupied by Christ, as a position 
of ruler éx? rév olxov; and in harmony with this distinction, already ver. 
3 characterizes Moses as merely a member of the oj«o¢g itself; Christ, on 
the other hand, a¢ the founder of the oixoc.—airod] refers neither to Christ 
(Bleek) nor to Moses (Oecumenius and others), but, as also determined by 
the form of the expression with the LXX. (éy 62» 76 oixp pov), to God.— 
But the house of God is the people of God, or the kingdom of God; and 
iv denotes the province, in the administration of which the mordv eivac was 
made manifest. 

Ver. 3.2 [XLVIII d 2.] Continued alleging of reasons for the karavogeare, 
ver. 1, in bringing into more distinct relief the exaltedness of Christ above 
Moses. Ver. 3 is not, as de Wette supposes, explication or analysis of 


TLOTOV OVTA TO TOolyoavT 


1 That which Delitzsch urges against either 
possibility, namely, that “although the man 
Jesus as such, so far as that which is essential 
in the notion of creation is the state of be- 
ginning in time, must be regarded as a 
creature, there could be no more unsuitable 
expression—because one almost unmean- 
ingly colorless, or even indecorous—for the 
matchless and unique act of the formation 
of the humanity of the Son in the womb of 
Mary, than the term zovecv, for the use of 
which, in this sense, no instances can on that 
very account be adduced;” and that “after 


the author has, i. 2, employed movety as ex- 
pression of the pure idea of ereation, he could 
surely not now have employed it of the sub- 
limer genesis of the Mediator of the world’s 
creation,” falls to pieces, because it rests 
upon mere ‘subjectivity. For it is nothing 
more than a pronouncing upon the mind of 
the writer from the standpoint of the critie’s 
own ready-formed dogmaties. 

2Comp. Gabler, Dissert. exeg. in illustrem 
locum Heb. iii. 3-6, Jena 1778. (Reprinted in 
the Opusce. acad. vol. II. Ulm 1831, 8.) 


CHAP. Im.) 3,4: 459 


ver.2. For a placing upon a parallel cannot be explained or analyzed by 
a placing superior.—oiroc] se. "Incoie —On wapa after a comparative, see 
at i. 4.—7giwra] has been counted worthy, sc. by God. The verb stands, as 
ordinarily (comp. 2 Thess. i. 5, 11; 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. x. 29), in the real 
sense, so that it includes the notion of the possession obtained.—The 
figure in the proposition of comparison, kaé’ dcov mieiova Timyv EyxeEL 
Tov oixov x.7.A., is Occasioned by the preceding é b/w 76 oixw adtov 
added in ver. 2. The words contain a truth of universal validity, the 
application of which, for the rest, to Christ and Moses, follows of itself. 
Greater honor than the house (in the wider sense [of household], the 
family and servants included therein) has he who has prepared it. Thus, 
also, Christ stands higher in honor and glory than Moses. For founder 
and establisher of the house of God, or the divine kingdom,—which in its 
first formations reaches back to the time of the Old Covenant, but by the 
New Covenant comes to full realization,—is Christ ; while Moses is only a 
part of the olxog¢ itself, only a (ministering, cf. ver. 5) member of this 
house, or an oix«éry7¢ in the same. Confusing and full of caprice is the 
indication of the connection of thought of vv. 8-6 as given by Delitzsch. 
See, in opposition to him, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 809.—rov oixov] 
is governed by the comparative rAeiova: more (greater) honor than the house. 
Mistakenly do Homberg, Wolf, Peirce, Michaelis, Heumann, Semler, 
Morus, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Paulus, Stengel, and others make it depend 
upon tiuqv: greater honor of the house, or in the house.—karackevagew] im- 
plies more than oixodoveiv. Not only the erection of the house, but also 
the arrangement thereof, the providing of it with the necessary furniture 
and servants, is thereby expressed. 

Ver. 4. [XLVIII d3.] The author has spoken, ver. 2, of the house of 
God, and yet, ver. 3, has ascribed the founding and preparing of the same 
to Christ. For the justification of this apparent contradiction does the 
remark, ver. 4, serve. Although every house has its special preparer, yet 
this notwithstanding, it is God who has prepared all things. That special 
foundership of Christ does not exclude the universal higher foundership 
of God. The proposition ver. 4 is incidental to the main argument. It is 
not, however, to be enclosed in a parenthesis, because abrov, ver. 5, refers 
back to 6eé¢, ver. 4.—In the second clause, #eé¢ is subject, and 6 dé 
mavta kataokevacag predicate. Wrongly has @eé¢ been ordinarily 
taken by others as predicate, and as subject either 6 d& ravta kataoxevdcac 
or merely 6 dé, since avra Kkatackevacac was taken as a defining adjunct. 
The second member of the proposition was then referred to Christ, and 
the statement found therein that Christ is God.! But with this thought 
the sequel is not in keeping. For not of Christ’s being God, but of His 
exalted relation to the house of God as the vide, while Moses was only a 
Gepaxwv, does the author speak, vv. 5, 6.—7avra] denotes not the univer- 


1So Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schmidt, Wittich, Braun, Akersloot, Calmet, 
Clarius, Beza, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Corne- Bengel, Cramer, Whitby. Stuart, Baumgarten, 
lius a Lapide, Cameron, Piscator, Owen, Seb. and many others; also still Woerner. 


460 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
sality of all created things, thought of as a unity, but in general: each and 
all, that exists. 

Ver. 5 as far as airov, ver. 6. Return to the point of comparison between 
Christ and Moses, ver. 2 (7vo76¢), and the exaltedness of the former above 
the latter, ver. 3 (vidc, émi .. . Gepadmwr, év).—xai] is the more sharply- 
defining “and indeed ;” whereas év serves to bring into relief the per- 
sonal name Moioye, and finds in Xpioréc¢ dé, ver. 6, its emphatic opposition. 
Vy. 5, 6 init. does not, accordingly, contain a second proof for the superior- 
ity of Christ to Moses! but is only a more detailed unfolding of the 
thoughts, ver. 2 and ver. 3.—zuoréc] sc. #v, or else éoriv, in connection 
with which latter mode of supplementing, the thought would be less of 
the historic fact as such, than of the fact as it still continues present in the 
O. T. narrative.—airov] refers not to Mwio7c (as Ebrard assumes, since he 
starts with the erroneous presupposition that the author speaks of a 
twofold oixoc, and that the design of vv. 5,6 was just that of rendering 
clearly apparent the difference of the house entrusted to Moses on the 
one hand, and that entrusted to Christ on the other), but to 6eéc, ver. 4.— 
&¢ Oepatwv] in his capacity as servant, comp. Num. xii. 7. Upon this, as 
upon the preceding év, rests the emphasis of ver. 5.—ei¢ wapripiov] belongs 
It is unnaturally referred back by Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Sten- 
gel, and others to micté¢e.—eic paptipiov tov Aadnfjoouévov] [XLVIII d 4.] 
to give testimony to that which should be spoken, or proclaimed to the people. 
Ta AadAyOno6ueva are not the revelations afterwards to be given in Christ,? 
which must have been more precisely specified ; and still less does the 
expression indicate; ‘dicenda a nobis in hac epistola de cerimoniis earum- 
que significatione et usu” (Pareus), but the law to be proclaimed by Moses, 
at the mandate of God, to the Jewish people is intended. 

Ver. 6. Xpictic dé de vidc] Christ, on the other hand, in His capacity as 
Son, sc. riotég éotw. Upon this supplement depends é7? rév olkov avrow 
(comp. Matt. xxv. 21, 23); and as vide forms an ascent from the preceding 
Oeparuav, so does éxi form.an ascent from the preceding év. Erasmus, 
Paraphr. ; Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Delitzsch, Moll, and others supply 
to Xpicric 62 . . . aitovd simply éoriv, whereby, however, the relation of 
just proportion between ver. 5 and ver. 6 is destroyed. The opening 
words of ver. 5, moreover,—inasmuch as they attach themselves not only 
to ver. 3, but also again to ver. 2,—manifestly point to the fact that the 
author will indicate not the mere difference between Christ and Moses, but 
their difference within the quality common to both. Yet others, as Bleek, 
de Wette, and Bisping, supply a double mvoréc éorw, the first after Xpuord¢ 
dé, the second after airot; since* they refer airov back to vide: Christ, 
however, is faithful, as a son is faithful over his house. But a satisfactory 
ground for taking oixo¢ airov, ver. 6, otherwise than the same expression 


“ 


to feparur. 


1Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Woer- 
ner. 

2 Erasmus, Calvin, Cameron, Caloyv, Seb. 
Schmidt, Owen, Limboreh, Wolf, Wetstein, 
Ebrard, Delitazsch, Alford, Moll, Fwald, 


M’Caul, Woerner, and others. 

8As the Vulgate, Beza, Estius, Grotius, 
Owen, Er. Schmid, Calov, Wolf, Carpzov, 
Cramer, Baumgarten, Gabler, Valekenaer, 
Béhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Tholuck, and others. 


CHAP, Il. 5, 6. 461 


ver. 5, is not to be found. The house of God, or the divine kingdom, is 
for Moses and Christ the common sphere of operation; only by the posi- 
tion which the two occupy towards this house, are they distinguished the 
one from the other.—As avroi, ver. 6, so is the relative oi, with which 
the author prepares the way for a transition to the paraenesis, not to be 
referred to Christ,’ but to God ;? [XLVIII d 5.] although as regards the 
matter itself even the former reference would not be incorrect, since the 
house of God, ver. 2, is likewise characterized as the house of Christ, 
ver. 3.—The article before oixo¢ was not imperatively required, although 
the whole Christian community forms a single indivisible house of God, 
since the notion of the word was one sufficiently well known, and, more- 
over, adequately defined by that which precedes—The absolute declara- 
tion: of oiké¢ éowev gueic, onthe import of which 1 Cor. iii. 9, 16, 2 Cor. 
vi. 16, Eph. ii. 20 ff, 1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. ii. 5, iv. 17, is to be compared, 
and which is taken in a strangely perverted way by Ebrard (p. 187) and 
Delitzsch as the logical antithesis to sic wapripiov tov AaAnOyoouévov, ver. 5, 
the author limits by a condition—The fuller éavzep is foreign to the 
epistles of Paul.—rjv rappyciav] not the bold confession* to which BeBaiav 
kataoyouev Would not be fitting, but cheerful confidence as a disposition. 
Comp. iv. 16, x.19,35. riv rappyoiav, to which rye éAridoc® belongs in 
like manner as to 7d xabyjua (against Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 
739), is the main idea, whereas «ai 7d kai yyua adds only an explicative 
subsidiary factor. That is manifest from the feminine BefSaiav (which 
Stengel wonderfully refers back, in a constructio ad sensum, to éAridoc). 
Instances of the agreement of the adjective in point of gender with the 
remoter substantive, in cases where this forms the principal idea, occur 
also with the classics.“—The é47ic¢ is the Christians’ hope of the consum- 
mation of the kingdom of God, and the glorification of the Christians 
bound up therewith. Comp. Rom. v. 2, also Heb. vi. 11, 18, vii. 19, x. 23. 
kat yyua, however, is not here either equivalent to kabyyovc,’ any more 


1Oecumenius, Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, 4Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Hammond, 


Owen, Whitby, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, 
Woerner, al. 

2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Stengel, 
Stuart, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, 
Hofmann, and others. 

3 Philo, too, often employs the same figure, 
applying it to the human soul. Comp. de 
Somn. p. 587 E (ed. Mangey, I. p. 648): o7ov- 
Sagov ov, ® Wux7y, Aeov oikos yeveoOat, iepov 
ayvov x.t.A.—De resip. Noé, p. 282 E (ed. Man- 
gey, I. p. 402): tis yap otkos mapa yevéoer Sv- 
vat av akvompeméeotepos evpeOjvar bea mAHV 
Wux7js TeAElws Kekabapwevns Kal movov TO KaAOV 
Hyoupevns ayabov;...katoxery dé A€yeTar ev 
OLKw 0 Beds OVX ws EV TOTH (TEpLEXEL yap Ta TATA 
mpos uydevos meptexXomevos), AAA’ ws TpOvoLay Kal 
empeAeray exelvou TOV Xwplov SiahepovTws ToLov- 
fLevos’ TavTt yap Tw dSeamoCovTe oiKias 4 TavTHS 
KaTa TO avaykatov avymTat dpovtis. 


Limborch, Whitby, Heinrichs, and others. 

5 Both words are found combined in Jo- 
sephus likewise, Antig. xvi.3.3: kat Sevvos Ov 
Tov Tpomov ‘Avtimatpos, emerdy Tappynaias 
TLVOS THS OV TPOTEPOV OVAGHSEATLOOS 
QVTETOLHTAaTO, play EoxeV UTdOETLY KaKOUV 
Tovs adeAdous, K.T.A. 

®Comp. Hom. Jl. xv. 344: tradpw kat oxo- 
Aomecou evimaAnéavtes OpuKTH; Hesiod. Theo- 
gon. 972 f.: Os cio’ emt yhv Te, kal evpeéa vata 
Garacons, Tagoav; Xenophon, Anab. i. 5.6: 
0 6€ aiyAos S¥vaTat Emta OBOAOVS Kal nuLoBo- 
Avoy “AtTiKxovs; Thucydides, viii. 63: mué@o- 
MEVOS Ta TEPL THY vavmaxiay Kai TOV STpoOL- 
Buxtdnv kai tas vats ameAnAvOoTa. See 
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 431. 

7 Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Stengel, Bis- 
ping, Maier, and others. 


462 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


than 2 Cor. y. 12, ix. 8, which have been unwarrantably appealed to (see 
Meyer ad loc.), but denotes the subject of the boasting. Sense: provided 
we shall have maintained the Christians’ hope as a cheerful confidence and sub- 
ject of boasting firm unto the end.—péxpe tédovc] not: until the death of each 
individual (Schlichting, Grotius, Kuinoel) ; not: “until the final decision 
of the readers in favor of going over to Christianity ” (! Ebrard), but as 
ver. 14, vi. 11, 1 Cor. 1. 8, al., unto the end of the present order of the world, 
intervening with the coming again of Christ, and thought of as in the 
near future (comp. x. 25, 37), at which time faith shall pass over into sight, 
hope into possession. 

Ver. 7-iv. 138. [On Vv. 7-14, see Note XLIX., pages 472, 473.] The author, 
in detailed development of the paraenesis already contained in vv. 1, 6, 
warns against unbelief and apostasy, making the basis of this warning the 
admonitory utterance of Scripture in Ps. xcv. 7-11; and by means of a 
parallelizing of the people of God of the present time, 7. e. the Christians, 
with the people of God of Moses’ day, ¢.e. the Israelite fathers in the 
wilderness,—a parallelizing equally suggested by this passage of Scripture 
as by the preceding comparison of Christ with Moses,—he sets forth 
before the eyes of his readers the fate of the ancient people of God, who 
because of their unbelief were consigned to destruction, that the readers 
may earnestly ponder thereon. [XLIX a.] 

Ver. 7. Aw] [XLIX b.] Wherefore, i.e. either: because Christ stands 
higher than Moses,! or, which is better: because we are the olxog of God, 
only in the case that we hold fast the rappyoia and the kabynua of the 
Christian hope unto the end (ver. 6). [XLIX c.] The tempus finitum 
belonging to Avé is BAémere, ver. 12,” in such wise that xafoc . . . Katdrav- 
civ wov forms an intervening clause. The length of the intervening clause, 
at which de Wette*takes umbrage, decides nothing against the supposition 
of such construction, which at all events possesses the advantage of 
greater regularity and naturalness, since the author, owing to the care 
which he everywhere bestows upon his diction, in other cases, too, accur- 
ately fits in his discourse again to the opening words of the proposition, 
notwithstanding the occurrence of lengthy intervening clauses. Comp. 
vii. 20-22, xii. 18-24. That, moreover, which de Wette further objects, 
that in the intervening clause the discourse takes a new departure with 
66, ver. 10, forms no valid counter-argument, since the connectedness of 
the preceding and following words as part of a Biblical citation follows 
naturally. In any case, ver. 10 connects itself with that which precedes, 
without a new beginning, in a simply relative fashion, if—as we are per- 
fectly justified in doing—we write 6’ 6 instead of 6:6. When de Wette, 
finally, discovers a difficulty in the fact that the warning, vy. 12, 18, does 
not appear in the form of a simple application of the passage of Scripture, 
but, on the contrary, begins with an analysis of the same, this also is 


1S0 Carpzov, Zachariae, Boéhme, Stuart, tor, Pareus, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, 


Kurtz, and Woerner; comp. already Schlicht- Limborch, Bengel, Peirce, Carpzov, Wetstein, 
ing. Abresch, Zachariae, B6hme, Bleek, Bisping, 


2Erasmus, Annott.; Calvin, Estius, .Pisca- Alford, Kurtz, Woerner, al. 


CHAP. UI. 7-9. 463 


without weight, inasmuch as the correctness of this assumed fact must 
itself be contested. In addition to this, if the author had conceived of 
the structure otherwise than has been indicated, he would assuredly have 
‘placed Baérere obv, ver. 12, instead of the disconnected aéxere. For 
neither is it permissible to appeal (with Tholuck) to the disconnected 
Baémere, xii. 25, in proof of the opposite, since this passage, on account of 
the rhetorical character of the description which there immediately 
precedes, is totally different from ours. Others,! connect 6:6 immediately 
with py oKkAypivyte, in connection with which, however, the direct address 
of God, coming in ver. 9 ff, occasions a great harshness; or else,” leave 
the application yy oKAnpbvyte tag Kapdiac ijuov to be supplied in thought 
from these words; or, finally, supplement 6vé in a somewhat free manner : 
therefore conduct yourselves in accordance with that which the Holy Ghost speaks. 
—rd mveipa Td Gywov] the Spirit of God in prophecy; comp. ix. 8, x. 15.— 
ahwepov éav THE Pwvig avtov axovoyre] isin the Hebrew apown Yopa-DN D177) 
an independent clause, and the expression of a wish: “would that you 
would only to-day listen to His (God’s) voice!” It is possible that the 
LXX. also understood the words as a wish, since elsewhere, too (e.g. Ps. 
exxxix. 19), they render the particle of wishing, 0%, by édv. Differently, 
however, does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews take the words 
(against Hofmann). He regards éav as the protasis, and ji okAnpivyTe as 
the apodosis; comp. ver. 165, iv. 7.—In the application of#uepov denotes 
the time of salvation which has come in with the appearing of Christ 
upon earth, and 7 gev7y abrov the voice of God which through Christ 
sounds forth to the readers by means of the gracious message of the 
_ gospel. 

Ver. 8. Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation (contumacy), on the 
day of temptation in the wilderness. In the original, xaparcxpacpoc and 
meppacusc are proper names (“as at Meribah, as on the day of Massah in 
the wilderness” [13°V23 799 B72 N23), which, however, are under- 
stood by the author in the appellative sense (comp. ver. 16), in that he 
takes kata tiv quépav Tov TELpacuwov aS an epexegetical note of time to év 
1@ mapazuxpacu@. On the history, comp. Hx xy. J-7-) Num. xx, 1-15. 
tov reipacuov] in the active sense : the tempting of God by contumacious 
behavior, comp. ver. 9. 

Ver. 9. 0d] is taken by Erasmus Schmid, Bengel, and Pierce as attrac- 
tion to wecpacuov instead of @, wherewith. But in this case od would have 
been connected immediately with wepacuov. It is the local ‘“ where;” 
thus stands, as frequently, in the sense of érov, and refers back to ép7u@.— 
ov éreipacav of Tatép|es tuav Ev SoKL“acL a] where your fathers essayed tempta- 
tion, onthe ground of proving or testing, i. e. where your fathers tempted me * 
and put me to the test. dokcuacia as weipacecv here in the bad sense. 


1As Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Wittich, appeal to Rom. xv. 3, 21,1 Cor. i. 31, 11. 9: 


Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Eb- 3In an unnatural manner, Hofmann: as 
rard, Bloomfield, Delitasch, Reuss, and Hof- eldov, so also even émetpagav finds its object in 
mann. Ta Epya Mov. 


2As Tholuck, de Wette, and Maier, who 


464 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


The former contains an enhancement of the latter. This involves doubt 
with regard to the inclination of God to render help, that doubt with 
regard to His power of doing s0.—kai eidov] «.7.4.] and yet saw my works 
forty years long. This was a fact that aggravated their guilt. In the 
original, reocapdxovra éry belongs to the following zpocdyfica. To the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also this original connection was 
known, as is evident from ver. 17. If he nevertheless refers reooapdaxovra 
érn to that which precedes, and moreover consolidates this connection by 
means of the dé (d’ 6) interpolated only by himself, he must have been 
guided by a distinct design in doing so. Rightly, therefore, is it assumed! 
that the author discovered in the forty years during which the Israelites 
in the wilderness saw the works of God, a typical reference to the about 
equal space of time during which the Hebrews had now also witnessed 
the government of God as manifested in Christ, and would make this 
reference clear to the readers, in order thereby to render the more impres- 
sive his exhortation to receptiveness, while there is yet time. The 
reminder of Akersloot, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Abresch, Bleek, and others, is at 
the same time worthy of notice, viz. that also in the Talmud and by the 
Rabbins a duration of forty years is assigned to the Messianic kingdom 
with reference to Ps. xev. and the forty years of the wilderness. 

Ver. 10. Ad rpocdybica tH yeved tatty] Wherefore I conceiwed an aversion, 
or was incensed against this generation —On 46:6, see at ver. 9. The verb 
rpocoxbifecv, is not found at all in the classics, in the N. T. only here 
and ver. 17; with the LXX., on the other hand, very frequently —In 
yeved lies neither the subordinate notion of meanness (Heinrichs, Sten- 
gel), nor yet the intimation that the men of acertain period belong in 
point of character and mind to a definite class (Bleek). Each of these 
subordinate notiohs ry yeved acquires only by the ratty which is added.— 
dei] note of time to zAavévra, not to eitov (Erasmus).—avroi dé] So the 
LXX. in the Cod. Alex., whose form of the text the author for the most 
part reproduces; the Cod. Vatican. has more in accordance with the 
Hebrew: kai abrot obk éyvocay. 

Ver. 11: ‘Qe dpoca év tH opyh uov] as accordingly T (as to the sense equiv- 
alent to: so thatI; see Winer, p. 431 [E. T. 462]; in the Hebrew WW) 
sware (comp. Num. xiv. 21 ff., xxxii. 10 ff.; Deut. i. 34 ff) mm (not: by) my 
wrath.—ei ticeAeboovtar ete THY KaTaravoiv wov] not enter, shall they, into my rest. 
ei is an exact imitation of the negative Hebrew particle D8 in formulas of 
swearing, and is to be explained from an aposiopesis of the latter clause.’ 
—xartdravoic] in the sense of the psalmist, the undisturbed possession of 


1Calov, Wittich, Akersloot, Surenhus, 
Schottgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Abresch, Béhme, 
Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrderbr. p. 618; Alford, Reiche, Comm. 
Crit. p. 22; Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others, 

2Comp. Sanhedr. fol. 99,1: R. Eliezer dixit: 
dies Messiae sunt quadraginta anni, sicut 
dicitur: quadraginta annos sqq. (Ps. xev. 10): 


Tanchuma, fol. 79, 4: Quamdiu durant anni 
Messiae? R. Akiba dixit: quadraginta an- 
nos quemadmodum Israélitae per tot annos in 
deserto fuerunt. 

8 Comp. Mark viii. 12; Ewald, Krit. Gramm. 
p.. 661; Winer, p. 466 [E. T. 500]; Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 308 [E. T. 358). 


CHAP, 11. 10-12. 465 
the land of Canaan promised by God. Afterwards, because with the 
possession of the promised land the expected full repose and happiness 
had as yet by no means come in, the ‘meaning of the promise was subli- 
mated, just as that of the kindred «Aypovoyetw tiv yiv Ps. XXXVil. 9, into the 
everlasting Messianic blessedness. This reference obtains, as is evident 
from the following disquisition, with our author also. 

Vy. 12, 18. [XLIX d.] Close of the period begun with 61, ver. 7.—BAé- 
mere] beware, take heed.—uy mote éorac] py after BAére, dpa, and similar 
words, with the indicative future (comp. Col. ii. 8), expresses at the same 
time with the warning, the fear that the warning will be slighted? The 
enclitic tore appended to the 4, not: at any time (Beza and others), but: 
haply [ii. 1; Luke xiv. 29; Acts v. 39; Matt. iv. 6, ete.]—éy ra buoy] dif- 
ferent from év tuiv. Calvin: Nec tantum in universum praecipit aposto- 
lus, ut sibi omnes caveant, sed vult ita de salute cujusque membri esse 
sollicitos, ne quem omnino ex iis, qui semel vocati fuerint, sua negligen- 
tia perire sinant. Comp. ver. 13, x. 24, xii. 15.—xapdia rovnpa arwotiac] an 
evil heart of unbelief; comp. iv. 2, 8. Wrongly Schulz and others: of 
faithlessness or areifera, iv. 6, 11, ii. 18; for the latter is only the conse- 
quence of the amoria. amcoriag is either genitive of origin, which pro- 
ceeds from unbelief (Owen, Bleek, Stengel, and others), or genitive of 
result, which leads to unbelief, renders inclined to the same (de Wette, 
Bisping, al.), or genitive of reference to a more precise characterization of 
rovnod: a heart evil (on account) of unbelief, which is then equivalent to 
kapdia Tovnplav axcoriac éxovoa (So Winer, p. 183 [E. T. 194.]; Ebrard, 
Alford, Meyer, Moll, and Hofmann). The last acceptation is to be pre- 
ferred, since thereby amoriac is more clearly brought out as the main idea 
(for kapdia rovnpd is only a clothing of the same attaching itself to aet rAa- 
vovrat TH Kapdia, ver. 10).—év TO arroorHvat ard Heod Cévroc] More precise defi- 
nition ® to amoriac for the declaration of the outward form of appearance, 
‘in which the inner unbelief comes forth : in the falling away from the living 
God, or in such wise that a falling away from the living God takes place. God 
(not Christ: Gerhard, Dorscheus, Calov, 8. Schmidt, Schéttgen, Carpzov, 
al.) is called living, not in opposition to the dead works of the law (ix. 14, 
vi. 1; Bleek), nor in opposition to the idols of the heathen, similarly as 
2 Kings xix. 16, 1 Thess. i. 9, 2 Cor. vi. 16, Acts xiv. 15 (Béhme and 
others)—both of which must have been suggested by the context,—but 
because He does not allow His declared will to be slighted with impunity. 
Comp. x.31. That which is meant is the relapse from Christianity into 
Judaism.‘ 


1Comp. Deut. xii. 9,10: Ob yap nKaTe Ews TOD 
vov €is THY KaTaTavoLY' kal eis THY KANpOoVvoLiar, 
hv KUptos O Beds Hav Sidwory Duty’ Kat dcaBy- 
geabe Tov lopdavyny kai kaTouknoeTe emt THS YS, 
Fis KUptos 0 Geds Huo@v KaTakAnpovopel UmiV Kat 
KaTaTavoel Vas amd TaVYTWY TOV €XOpaV VMaV 
TOV KUKAwW Kal KATOLKHTETE ETA aopadrelas. 

2 Comp. Winer, p. 468 f. [E. T. 503]; Hartung, 
Partikellehre, Il. p. 140. 


30 


3Schlichting: Duplex est enim increduli- 
tas; una eorum, qui nunquam Deo credunt; 
altera eorum, qui credere desinunt, h. e. a 
Deo desciscunt seu apostatae fiunt. 

4Limborch: Defectio hic intelligitur a re- 
ligione Christiana; quia enim illa continetur 
ultima ac perfecta Dei voluntas, hine sequi- 
tur, quod is, quia a religione Christiana deficit, 
ab ipso Deo deficiat. Ergo quicunque deserta 


466 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Ver. 13. ‘Eavroic] tantamount to 44A42.0vc, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7; Eph. iv. 
32; Col. iii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 8, al. ; Kihner, II. p. 325.—aypec 
ov] [XLIX e.] in the inclusive sense: as far as that, 7.e. so long as.’ aypuc 
ov Td ohuepov Kadeitar] so long as the to-day, of which mention is made in the 
passage of the psalm, is named, or: so long as it is still called “ to-day,” 
and it is thus not yet too late to be obedient to the admonition of the 
psalm? Others:* so long as that to-day of the psalm is called out, i.e. is 
called out, or proclaimed, to you.—The “ to-day ” is not the duration of the 
lifetime of the individuals,t but (comp. péype tédovc, vv. 6, 14) the continued 
existence of the earthly world, which, with the Parousia of Christ—thought 
of as near at hand (x. 25, 37)—attains its end.—dardry rij¢ duapriac] by the 
deception (the treacherous enticement or alluring) of sin. The duapria 
is here personified, comp. Rom. vii. 11. What is meant is the allurement 
exerted by the seductive splendor of the ancient cultus to a relapse into 
the same, and therewith to an apostasy from Christianity. 

Ver. 14. Warning justification of iva py) oxAnpyvOh gE budv Tuc k.7.A., ver. 18, 
inasmuch as the fulfilling of a condition is necessary to the attainment of 
salvation.— péroyou tov Xpiorov] Participators in (iii. 1, vi. 4, xii. 8) Christ, 
z.e. in His treasures of blessing and in His glory. Schulz, Delitzsch, 
Ewald, Hofmann, and others explain: Associates of Christ (i. 9), i.e. His 
brethren (ii. 11 ff.), or His ovyxanpovéuor (Rom. viil. 17), inasmuch as “the 
d6£a, into which Christ, the Anointed One existing in kingly glory, has 
entered as our apyryéc, is, by virtue of the KAjou érovpdvioc, not only His, 
but also owrs, although as to its revelation and consummation in hope” 
(Delitzsch) ; against which, however, the fact is decisive that édvrep x.7.A. 
points to a relation not of equality, but of dependence, and perdyove tov 
Xpiorov eivac corresponds to the notion of eicépyeota: ei¢ THY KaTaravow, VV. 
11,18. Compare, moreover, against Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Heb- 
raerbr. p. 719, note.—yeyévauev] we have become. The author does not write 
éouév, as ver. 6, in order to dismiss at once the thought of claim existing 
from the first, and, on the contrary, to represent the said prerogative as 
one only acquired (by faith, comp. éavzep k.7.A.).—édvrep thy apynv tic 
trrooracewc K.7.A.] if so be that (provided) we preserve the beginning of the con- 
fidence firm to the end, comp. ver. 6, fin. ixéataccrc does not here denote 
fundamentum (Erasmus, Paraphr.; Seyffarth, p. 67: prima religionis fun- 


fide Christiana ad Judaismum redeunt,a Deo 
deficiunt; licet enim Deum non abnegent, 
qui legis Mosaicae auctor est, tamen, quia 


Tw, advvatov eipyvns TUXELY Ta MpayKaTa. JO- 
sephus, Antiq. x. 2. 2: nbxeto meéxpis THs avTov 
Gwis elpnvnv vmapfac; Xenophon, Cyrop. v. 4, 


Deus nune non secundum legis praecepta se 
eoli velle testatur, sed juxta evangelium il- 
lique credentibus fidem in justitiam imputa- 
turum, etiam, qui illud deserunt, a Deo defi- 
cere dicendi sunt. Deus enim multis ac evi- 
dentissimis signis ac miraculis se Christum 
misisse ostendit, et yoce e caelo demissa tes- 
tatus est eum esse suum filium, in quo sibi 
complacuit jussitque ut eum audiant. Ergo 
praecepta ejus sunt praecepta Dei, ete. 

1Cf. 2 Mace. xiv. 10: .axpt yap Llovdas mepiec- 


16: Kai o méev “Acavptos Siwéas aypis ob} aahades 
WeTO Eivat, aTETPaTETO. 

2So Luther, Estius, Schlichting, Owen, Carp- 
zov, Stuart, Bleek, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, al. 

3As Heinrichs, Dindorf, BGhme, Kuinoel, 
Klee, Tholuck, Moll, Hofmann. 

4Basil, Ep. 42, Opp. iii. p. 130: 7d ojmepov 
onMatver GAov TOV xpovory THs Gwis nuov; Theo- 
doret, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Es- 
#ius, Cornelius a Lapide, J. Cappellus, Dor- 
scheus, Valckenaer. 


CHAP rie 13-16; 467 


damenta; Schulz: the first [anfanglichen] firm foundation; Stein and 
others), nor substantia, whether this be taken as reality [Wesen], as Luther 
(the reality begun), or as that of which a thing consists [Bestand], which con- 
stitutes it (Vatablus: illud, per quod primum subsistimus, i.e. fidem fir- 
mam; Estius : fidem, per quam in vita hac spirituali subsistimus ; Bisping : 
the beginning of the subsistence [of Christ in us], 7.e. faith; Ewald, al.). 
The expression stands, on the contrary, in the well-ascertained significa- 
tion: confidence, which notion is here naturally defined by the connection 
as confidence of faith (not hope, as Whitby and Delitzsch think).\—rjv apyyv 
t7¢ wrootacewc] the beginning of the confidence, i.e. not: the first confidence, 
which now begins to diminish,? but the confidence with which we have made 
a beginning, in stich wise that ry apy4v corresponds to the following pé ype 
téxove BeBaiav. Thus, rightly, Bleek, de Wette, Alford. 

Vv. 15-19. Confirmation of the warning statement, ver. 14. That the 
blessing-fraught fact (wero yor tod Xpiorov yeydvauev), declared ver. 14, is real- 
ized singly and solely in the case that the condition stated, of firmness of 
faith to the end, is fulfilled, is shown by the example of the Fathers. 
Their unbelief, their a7:oria (comp. ver. 19), was the cause why they did 
not attain to the goal. 

Vy. 15, 16. [On Vv. 15-19, see Note L., pages 473, 474.] With regard to 
the construction of ver. 15 the views of expositors greatly differ. It is 
assumed—(1) That ver. 15 forms an independent, complete sentence. It 
is then supposed that the citation introduced by év 76 2éyec#ar embraces 
only the words ojuepov . . . axovonre, and that afterwards with yj) cxAnpivyre 
x.7.A, the author proceeds, it is true, in the following words of that Bibli- 
cal citation, but appropriates them to himself, and employs them only for 
the clothing of the admonition to be uttered on his own part.? As, how- 
ever, the same words: yy oxAnpivyte tac Kapdiac iuav be év T@ TapaTiKpacya, 
had already been adduced, ver. 8, in the midst of the Biblical citation, and 

‘as a constituent part thereof, it could not possibly occur to the reader here 
at once to detach them from ofuepov . . . axobonre, and to understand them 
as words of the author addressed to themselves; and the less so, because 
ver. 16 ff. there follows a comment on the passage, in which ver. 16 
glances back to ojuepov . . . maparixpacuo, ver. 15 (ver. 7 f.); ver. 17 tothe 
mpoooxtioa k.7.A., ver. 10; ver. 18, finally, to the éwooa x.7.A., ver. 11, so that 
the natural explanation can only be, that the author intended to refer 


1 Comp. Heb. xi. 1; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xi.17; LXX. 
Ps. xxxix. 8; Ezek. xix.5; Ruthi.12. Com- 


avTav Tis U7 ToLOVTOLS UTOTTATEwS. 
2rnv UrooTtaacwy, Hv npkacbe Exety Vel Hv elxeTE 


pare also Polybius, iv. 50. 10: Oi 8 ‘Pdédvor, 
Bewpovvtes Thy Tov BuCavtiwy UméoTacw, Tpay- 
Batikas dtevonOncav mpds Td KaOikéaPar THS TpO- 
Oévews ; Vi. 55. 2: OVX OUTH THY Sivauev, ws THY 
UmécTaci avTov Kai TOAMaY KaTaTeETANYLEVOV 
Tay evavtiwv ; Diodorus Siculus, Excerpta de 
Virt. et vit. (Opp. ed. Wesselingins, t. ii., Am- 
stelod. 1745, fol.) p. 557: 7 év rats Bacdvois br6a- 
Taos THS Wuxis Kal TO KapTepikoV THs TOY Se_voaV 
Uromovns mepl wovoy eyev7yOy Tov “Aptotoyeitova ; 
Josephus, Antig. xviii. 1. 6: 7d aweTdAAaKTov 


év apxy, Cameron; tiv UrdaTacww THy ef aPX7Ss 
Grotius, Wolf, Bloomfield; tv mpaétny vrdc- 
Tag. AS Thy TpwTHY TiaTLY, 1 Tim. Vv. 12,and as 
Thy ayarny thy mpwrnv, Rey. ii. 4; Abresch, 
Tholuck, Stuart, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrderbr. p. 754; Maier, Kurtz, Hof- 
mann. 

3So Flacius Illyricus, Jac. Cappellus, Carp- 
zov, Kuinoel, Winer, Gramm., 5 Aufl. p. 
620, and Bloomfield; comp. also Hofmann 
ad loc. 


468 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


back to the whole Scripture citation already previously adduced, vv. 7-11, 
but that—inasmuch as he might presuppose it as known from that which 
precedes—he expressly repeats it only to the point at which the first mem- 
ber of his comment could attach itself. (2) Ver. 15 is connected with 
that which precedes, in that é 16 Aéyeofa x.7.A. is either regarded as 
epexegesis to yéypr Téove, ver. 14,' or is attached to the conditional clause 
édvrep . . . kataoywuev there occurring,’ or to all the words of ver. 14: 
. karacxouev, or, finally, is construed with apaka2eire, ver. 13.4 
But in the first case one must expect aypuc ob Aéyerar, or Something similar, 
in place of év 7@ Aéyeofa. In the other cases ver. 15 would drag as a feeble 
addition; in the last, moreover, ver. 14 would, contrary to all probability, 
become a parenthesis. (8) Ver. 15 is combined with that which follows. 
With ¢oB7fauev oiv, iv. 1, it is connected by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Olearius, Wittich, Valckenaer. Vy. 16-19 must then be 
regarded as a parenthesis, and ody, iv. 1, as a particle of resumption. But 
of a resuming of the, as yet, incomplete thought, ver. 15, in iv. 1, there is 
no appearance in the form of discourse in the latter passage, notwith- 
standing the accuracy of style on the part of our author. On the con- 
trary, from the tenor of iv. 1, itis indubitable that this verse is represented 
by virtue of ody as a consequence from iii. 16-19. These verses, there- 
fore, can form no parenthesis. But thus every possibility of connecting 
ver. 15 with iv. 1 falls away.—There remains, therefore, no course open 
but to take ver. 15 with the first question of ver. 16: rivec yap axotoar- 
tec mapeTrixpavav; as one whole. Thesense is: “ When it is said: ‘to- 
day,’ etc., (now, I ask:) who then were they who, although they heard 
(the voice), resisted ? was it not all, etc.?” On év 16 AéyeoGa, comp. év 
tg Aéyewv, Vili. 18.—yap serves for the strengthening of the particle of 
interrogation, but, at the same time, confirms the state of the fact ex- 
pressed, ver. 14.6 From what has been already observed, it is evident that 
ver. 16 contains two questions, of which the second forms the answer to 
the first. .[L b.] This view of ver. 16, appearing only rarely in antiquity 
(in the Peshito, with Chrysostom and Theodoret), and only asserted afresh 
since the beginning of last century, is now almost universally regarded as 
the true one. According to the mode of interpretation formerly current, 
two affirmative statements were recognized in ver. 16, the first of which 
was limited by the second. revéc was accordingly written instead of 
tivec,’ and the thought was found expressed that some, it is true, but by 


ueTOVOL . . 


1 Primasius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bis- 
ping, Reuss. 

2 Erasmus Schmid, Wolf. 

8 Ebrard, Alford. 

4Cameron, Peirce, Bengel, Cramer, Baum- 
garten, Abresch. : 

5This is done. by Semler, Morus, Storr, 
Heinrichs, Dindorf, Béhme, Klee, Bleek, de 
Wette, Tholuck, Winer, p. 532 [E. T. 571]; 
Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, and 
Woerner. 


6See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245f. Comp. also 
Matt. xxvii. 23; John vii. 41; Acts xix. 25; 1 
Cor. xi. 22. 

7Wrongly is it supposed by Bisping, who 
(equally as M’Caul) espouses afresh this in- 
terpretation formerly current, that it is a 
matter of indifference whether in connection 
therewith the two clauses be taken as ques- 
tions or as absolute statements. For, in 
reality, ov has in a question, like the Latin 
nonne, always an affirmative sense. See 


cHaP. ut. 17, 18. 469 


no means the totality of the Israelites, proved rebellious. As those who 
formed an exception to the rebelliousness or unbelief of the rvéc, exposi- 
tors accordingly thought either of Joshua and Caleb only,! or else, with 
reference to Num. xiv. 29 ff., i. 45, 47, at the same time of all the Israel- 
ites who, at the numbering, had not attained an age of twenty years, as 
also the Levites and women? But, considering the small number of re- 
sponsible believers, which, in comparison with the enormous total mass 
of responsible unbelievers (more than six hundred thousand), retires alto- 
gether into the background, the latter could not possibly be designated 
by the mere twé¢; nor can appeal be made for the opposite view to 1 Cor. 
x. 7-10, since the rwéc there several times recurring specializes only the év 
roic reioowv, ver. 5, in its different subdivisions. In addition to this, the 
interrogatory form in the parallel clauses, vy. 17, 18, already presupposes 
the interrogatory form also for ver. 16, and, as follows of necessity from 
the whole subsequent disquisition (comp. iv. 1, 2, 6, 8), the thought must 
be expressed in ver. 16 that the whole of the Israelites were disobedient 
in the wilderness, and therefore came short of the promised goal, in con- 
nection with which the wholly isolated exceptions are passed over un- 
noticed as not being taken into account.—a244] decides the preceding 
question with the expression of astonishment conveyed in a counter- 
question : but (can there be a doubt as to the answer?) was it not all of 
those who came forth out of Egypt ?—rdvrec oi] Erroneously Bengel, 
Schulz, Kuinoel, and others: only such as, ete.—did Moicéwc] by Moses, t. e. 
by his agency and under his guidance. Acd is used with considerable free- 
dom, since we should properly expect with it, instead of é&eAfévrec, a pass- 
ive notion as éayévtec. Comp. d¢ dy émcoteboare, 1 Cor. iii. 5. 

Vv. 17, 18. Further development of the truth, ver. 16, by means of 
recapitulation of the other main points of the Scripture citation. It was 
_ just this perverse totality of the Israelites with whom God was wroth on ac- 
count of their sin forty years long, and against whom, on account of their 
disobedience, He closed by an oath the entrance into His xatdravovwe.—Ben- 
gel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Delitzsch, Moll, Hofmann, and 
others, place the second note of interrogation, ver. 17, immediately after 
duaptioacw, and then take ov... épfuw as an assertory statement. But 
on account of the environment of purely interrogatory clauses, and be- 
cause the author indicates the result at which he aims only in ver. 19, it 
seems more correct, with Luther, Calvin, Beza, Mill, Wetstein, Bleek, de 
Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, and others, to take the whole clause: 
obyi. . . épfuw, together as a single question, in such wise that ov K.T.A. 
forms a prolonged characterization of toi¢ ayaptyoacw.—roic dyapthoacty | 
those that had sinned, namely, by unbelief and apostasy from God.—op ra 
kaka x.t.2.] pictorial description of seizure by a violent death, taken from 
Num. xiv. 29, 32.—xaa] limbs (specially hands and feet), with the LXX., 


Kihner, II. p.579; Hartung, Partikellehre, U1. tainly all.” 

p. 88. aAA’ ov mavtes cannot consequently 1S0 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, 
signify, as Bisping maintains, “but certainly Seb. Schmidt, Owen, and others. 

not all,” but, on the contrary, only “ but cer- 2So0 Cornelius a Lapide, Braun, Carpzov, al. 


470 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


translation of the Hebrew 0°)39, thus in general bodies or corpses.— 
éxecev| fell down, were stretched out dead, comp. 1 Cor. x. 8. 

Ver. 18. Ticw] Dativus incommodi.—p7 cicedetcecbac] On account of the 
variation of the subject in the tempus finitum and the infinitive, an inac- 
curacy instead of ju) eiceAcicecbar abtobc, but excusable since the subject 
of the infinitive was naturally afforded by the context.—e ~#| Observe 
the mastery Of style on the part of the author, appearing even in the 
variation of the negations: aaa’ ob... obyi . . . et ph, Vv. 16-18. 

Ver. 19. Closing result from vv. 15-18.—«xai BAéropev] thus we see then. 
Grotius (to whom Carpzov and others assent) : “ Ex historia cognoscimus.” 
But more correctly Seb. Schmidt (with whom Owen, Bleek, Alford, and 
others agree): “ 8Aézrovev non de lectione aut cognitione historiae, sed de 
convictione animi e disputatione seu doctrina praemissa.”—d? azoriav] 
on account of (their) unbelief. Placed with emphasis at the end. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XLVIII. Vv. 1-6. 


(a) Ver. 1 contains an exhortation which is parallel with the one in ii. 14 
(katavofoate—oei Tepicootépwc Tpooéxewv), but which, through 64ev, is connected with 
the next preceding passage, as the previous exhortation is with i.4-14. It is the 
one, often-repeated exhortation, which is pressed upon the readers as the result of 
the argument in all its parts. Im this case, the hortatory passage is closely joined 
in the grammatical construction with what follows in ver. 2, which is a part of the 
words contrasting Christ with Moses. This grammatical union, however, is only 
incidental to the epistolary and Pauline character of the,writing. In relation to 
the thought and to the plan of the epistle, this first verse of chap. iii. should be 
placed at the end of chap. iii—(6) The word azécrodo¢ is used here in a sense in 
which dyyedoc might be used—that is, as designating the one sent from God to 
communicate the revelation, and thus to become the instrumental agent in the 
introduction of the N. T. system. It is doubtless chosen because the writer wished 
to compare Christ, in this regard, with the angels, and yet felt naturally impelled 
to avoid, in this connection, the-use of ayyeAoc. The addition of apyepev¢ cannot 
be regarded as anything more than a passing allusion to the title given in ii. 17, 
and thus must be considered, as it were, accidental. There is no dwelling upon the 
thought suggested by this title in the following context, as there has been none in 
the preceding context. The suggestion of Liinem.; that apy. refers back to the 
main thought of chap. ii—the reconciliation of sinful humanity to God by Christ— 
is to be rejected, because the main thought of chap. ii. is rather that of the death 
of Jesus for all men, and His preparation to be a leader of the great company to 
salvation, than that of presenting an offering on their behalf before God, or minis- 
tering as a priest. The latter ideas belong to the distinctive peculiarities of the 
high-priestly office, and to this author's conception of it; and the treatment of 
these which he gives is wholly in the later chapters—The genitive t7¢ éuoAoyiag 
juav may be considered, grammatically, a possessive genitive. Jesus is the 
apostle of, i. e., appertaining to, our confession. But He is so, not as being the one 
whom we confess, but the one who introduces the new confession. The actual 


NOTES. 471 


relation of the two words is, accordingly, an objective one, when the fundamental 
thought is considered. 

(c) Ver. 2 is introduced by évra as a mere descriptive phrase, setting forth the 
faithfulness of Jesus, and belonging with ver. 1. In the plan of the epistle, 
however, the comparison of Jesus with Moses begins here, and vy. 2-6 stand in 
a parallelism with the entire comparison with the angels in chaps. i., ii. In the 
development of the argument here, ver. 2 presents the fact that Christ and Moses 
were both instrumental agents employed by God and doing faithfully His 
appointed work. Ver. 3 and ver. 5 set forth the superiority of Christ, in that He 
was employed to establish and preside over the house of God, while Moses was 
only, as a servant, a part of the house, and one whose work found its end, not in 
itself, but in what was to follow after him. There are not two distinct and inde- 
pendent ideas in ver. 3 and ver. 5; there is only a development of one idea, which 
appears in the two separated verses by reason of the incidental insertion of ver. 
4.—(d) With respect to minor points in vy. 2-5, the following remarks may be 
made :—1. toijoavre is translated in A. V. and R. V. by appointed (though the 
marg. of both versions reads, Gr. made). Liinem., Blk., Alf., Grimm, and others 
maintain that this meaning cannot be given to vove’v when it stands absolutely, as 
it does here—that a second accusative cannot, in such a case, be supplied with this 
verb from the context. They hold that made or created is the meaning of the 
word, As to whether it refers to the incarnation or to the pre-mundane condition 
of the Son, there is some difference of opinion. On this point, it may be observed, 
(w) that, inasmuch as ver. 1 and, also, ver. 5 speak of official position, the idea of 
appointing to office is most suitable to the context, and this sense is, therefore, the 
most natural one for the word, if, indeed, it is a possible sense in such a case; (2) 
that the idea of creating the Son, either by an eternal generation or through His 
incarnation, is not suggested in the epistle elsewhere, and seems unlikely to have 
been presented here ; (y) that this verb in 1 Sam. xii. 6 may have this meaning, 
and according to Gesenius and other prominent autharities does have it, although 
there is no second accusative in the text—a probability even, that this is the 
correct understanding of the word in that passage, being found in the second verse 
which follows (ver. 8), where, in referring to the same matter, the word sent is 
used, and where it can hardly mean sent by creating ; (z) that, if ever allowable to 
omit the second accusative, it would seem very natural to do so here, because the 
word designating office has been just mentioned, and because the repetition of it 
would be rhetorically offensive. The use of tovjoavt:, instead of the participle of 
the verb xatvoravac (y. 1, vii. 28, viii. 3), is, not improbably, connected with its 
use-in 1 Sam. xii. 6—2. yap of ver. 3 is to be joined with katavoyoare (ver. 1) in 
the grammatical construction of the sentences as they are written. But, if the 
thought of vy. 2-6 be considered, as apart from ver. 1, yap has no proper -place 
in ver. 3. Some particle signifying but or however would be more suitable to the 
passage considered as independent and beginning with ver. 2—3. Ver. 4 is 
explained most satisfactorily by Ebrard, as showing that the declaration of ver. 3 
is not inconsistent with that of ver. 2, or, in other words, “that the ‘ being faith- 
ful’ might be predicated of Christ although He was the xatackevacac.” By this 
explanation the yap which opens the verse is easily accounted for, and the verse 
itself, though subordinate and secondary, comes into living connection with the 
development of the leading thoughts.—4. tov ZaAmFyoouévwv of ver 5, is best 
understood as referring to the N. T. revelation. This is indicated by the fact that 


472 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Aadsiv is used especially of the two revelations, in this epistle ; by the future tense, 
which naturally refers to the latter of the two, and also to what is future to the 
time of Moses’ testimony ; and by the indications which the writer gives that, in 
his view, the O. T. revelation through Moses was only a preparation and fore- 
shadowing of the revelation through Christ—5. The reference of airod in vy. 2, 5 
is to God, and the house of God is one and the same, only conceived of in its 
O. T. and N. T. condition. Of this house we i. e., the writer and his readers, are a 
part, 7/, and only if they hold fast to the end. The clause ov olkég éoyev of ver. 6 
forms an easy transition to the hortatory passage which follows, iii. 7-iy. 13. 


XLIX. Vv. 7-14. 


(a) From ver. 7 to iv.13 we have the hortatory passage belonging to the 
portion of the argument just given, vv. 2-6. This passage is made up of four 
parts: the first containing the general exhortation of the epistle (as presented in 
this connection), which is enforced by a quotation from the Psalms, vv. 7-14; 
the second calling attention to the cause of the failure of the persons spoken of in 
the Psalm-passage to receive the promised blessing, vv. 15-19; the third suggesting 
the danger that the readers might fail of the blessing from a similar cause, iv. 
1-10; and the fourth pressing the exhortation anew, in view of the fact that the 
word of God, which threatens punishment to the disobedient, is sure to be fulfilled, 
iv. 11-13.—(6) In the first part of the passage, the exhortation is found in vv. 
12-14 (negatively, not to apostatize, ver. 12; positively, to hold fast, vv. 18, 14). 
It is connected by 66 of ver. 7 with vv. 2-6, and is thus founded upon the 
superiority of Christ to Moses—the Psalm-passage having, as related to the 
progress of the thought, a parenthetical character. This Psalm-passage would 
more naturally have had its place after ver. 14, but it is inserted immediately 
after 616 in order to give additional force to the exhortation. vé of ver. 7, 
accordingly, qualifids BAérere «.7.4. of ver. 12; kadéc of ver.7 follows BAérere K.7.A, 
in thought, and also qualifies it; but 616 of ver. 10 is merely a part of the cited 
passage, connecting mpoodydioa K.7.A. With éreipacay «.7.A. of ver. 9, and has no 
bearing upon the main thought in ver. 12.—(c) The connection of 6:6 of ver. 7 
with the thought that we are the oixoc of God only in case we hold fast ete., which 
Liinem prefers, is to be rejected—at least, so far as the development of the main 
thought of the epistle is concerned—irst, because the main thought of the epistle 
is, not that we are the oixo¢ of God only in that case, but it is that Christ is 
superior to the agents employed by God in the O. T. revelation ; secondly, because, 
even in the preceding verses, ov olxog «.7.A., is only a subordinate and secondary 
clause, while the principal idea is the exaltation of-Christ above Moses; and 
thirdly, because, in the artistic arrangement of the epistle, the writer seems in 
every case, as already suggested, to found his exhortation on the point which he 
has made of chief importance in the next preceding sub-section. If d¢é is to be 
joined with ov oixdg éouev, therefore, it is only a grammatical connection, as we 
may say, and not the logical one. There is no necessity, however, for regarding 
this as the grammatical connection.. 

(d) The exhortation vy. 12, 13 is affected, in the expressions used, by the words 
quoted from the O. T. Comp. «apdia rovypa (which, as Liinem. says, is only a 
clothing of the idea attaching itself to dei tAavevrac ry Kapdia); TO ohuepov KadetraL; 
okdyovvd7. It is characteristic of Paul’s style, after the insertion of a parenthetical 


NOTES. 473 


passage of this sort, e. g., Rom y. 15-17, to express the following part of the main 
discourse in language which is, more or less, influenced by the parenthesis. But 
in this writer we notice something more than this :—namely, that, after a citation 
from the O. T., he is disposed to linger, in the presentation of what follows, within 
the language of the verses cited, and that he apparently thinks that, by so doing, 
he can give greater emphasis and force to the suggestions which he has to set 
before his readers. This peculiarity of his style, as connected with O. T. quota- 
tions, is strikingly manifest from this point of the epistle to the end. 

(e) In connection with what has been noticed under (d), the expression aypc¢ 
ov TO onMEpoV KadeiTaL isto be explained. 70 o7jwepov means the to-day of the passage 
quoted ; and the period within which the invitation and call of God come is set 
forth by this word, because of the writer’s desire to move in the sphere of that 
passage, so far as his language is concerned. dypcc¢ ov and xadeira are to be under- 
stood as Liinem. interprets them. The former of these two expressions probably 
refers, as he also says, to the time before the Parousia, but this view of the matter 
is not rendered absolutely necessary by the words used. 

(f) The yap of ver. 14, after the 6:6 of ver. 7, is to be explained as the yap of 
ii. 2 following da rovro of ii. 1 (See Note XLIV b above). The thought and 
language of this verse are nearly the same as in ver. 6 6. It will be noticed, how- 
ever, that, in addition to the minor differences (yeyévayuev substituted for éovev and 
THY apxnv the brooTdcewc for Tv Tappyoiav k,7.2.), we find here pétoyxor Tov Xpiorov 
in place of ov oixoc. 'This change of expression is indicative of the fact that the 
idea of Christ is the prominent one throughout the entire passage from the begin- 
ing of the chapter, and it may thus be regarded as confirmatory of the view 
advocated above, respecting the connection of 66 (ver. 7) with the thought of 
Christ as being higher than Moses. 


L. Vv. 15-19. 


(a) The question whether ver. 15 is to be connected with ver. 14 or with vv. 
- 16-19, is one of much difficulty. The connection with the following verses is 
favored, 1. by the fact that, at this point, there is a turn—from the application of 
the passage from the Psalms to the readers—to the setting forth of the reason why 
the persons in the O. T. history, to whom the passage alludes, failed to receive 
the offered blessing; 2. by the fact, at such a turning-point, it was natural that 
the writer should repeat the leading verse of the cited passage; 3. by the fact, 
that in i. 8 and viii. 15, when making a turn which is in some measure, though 
not precisely, similar to that which he makes here, the writer uses the phrase év 
T& with an infinitive—and, in viii. 13 at least, without any particle of transition; 
4. by the fact, that the correspondence of the latter part of ver. 14 with the latter 
part of ver. 6 renders it probable, as Bleek says, that the thought of vv. 12-14 
is intended to close with ver. 14; 5. by the fact of the feeble and dragging—we 
may add, unnecessarily repetitious—character of ver. 15 as an addition to vv. 
12-14; 6. by the fact that, while there are two other cases in which the writer uses év 
7 with an infin. in a sense kindred to that which it has here, if ver. 15 is joined 
with vy. 16-19, there is no place where he uses it with such a meaning as is 
assigned to it if this verse is united with ver. 14, i.e. while, as long as, seeing that, 
tnasmuch as, ete. For the latter ideas, we should rather expect aypic ov, or 626, or 
some similar expression. The «nly objection to the connection with ver. 16 lies 


474 THE EPISTLE TO THE HBBREWS. 


in the word yép. This particle must in this case be taken in the sense of then, or 
pray, which seems somewhat improbable in such a sentence ; while, on the other 
hand, if ver. 15 is joined with ver. 14, yap has its ordinary meaning for, and is 
quite in place. This objection, however, does not appear to be insuperable. 
Liinem. seems to hold that yap has a kind of double force, strengthening the 
particle of interrogation and, at the same time, confirming the statement of the 
fact expressed in ver. 14. But if ver. 15 begins a new thought, it is improbable 
that yap goes beyond it to ver. 14. The bearing of vv. 15-19 is rather towards iv. 
1 (comp ovv of that verse). On the whole, therefore, the connection of ver. 15 with 
vy. 16-19 is to be accepted as that which was intended by the author, and yap is 
to be taken as haying no reference to ver. 14.—Dr. Kendrick, in a note in Moll’s 
Commentary on the Ep. to the Heb., defends the connection of ver. 15 with iv. 1, 
adopting the view of Chrys. and others mentioned by Liinem. He modifies 
Chrysostom’s view somewhat, and holds that, “as the writer was about to proceed 
to the train of thought ch. iv. 1, he was led, especially by the language of the 
quotation itself, to restate, sharply and distinctly, what had been previously but 
implied and hinted at, the actual crime and the actual punishment of the ancient Israel- 
ites ;” that “he therefore abruptly breaks off in the middle of his sentence [end of ver. 
15], to introduce, in a series of sharp interrogations and statements, these ideas : 
which being accomplished, he returns,—with a natural change of construction 
occasioned by the long interposed passage,—to the idea which at iii. 15 he had 
started to develop.” By this method the objections to the view which makes 
ver. 15 a protasis, to which iy. 1 is the apodosis, 





namely that the particle ovv is 
out of place, and that vv. 16-19 become a mere parenthesis, in the strict sense, 
whereas ovv can only be properly explained as pointing back to those verses—are, 
in his judgment, obyiated. But such a digression at ver. 16 seems improbable, as 
compared with the straight-forward progress of thought which the connection of 
ver. 15 with vy. 16-19 gives, as set forth above. If the anthor had it in mind, at 
all, to state sharply‘and distinctly the actual crime, ete., of the ancient Israelites, he 
could accomplish this end with far more of impressiveness, if he turned directly 
to it at the close of ver. 14, and made it the next prominent thought of the passage, 
than if he introduced it only in a parenthetical way after beginning the expression 
of another idea. Moreover, as Bleek says, this writer, as contrasted with Paul, is 
careful to avoid such anacoluthic constructions, which leave the end not in accord 
with the beginning. 

(b) The twec of ver. 16 is now universally regarded as interrogative, not 
indefinite, as A. V., and the earlier writers: referred to by Liinem., understood it.— 
aad is rendered by nay in R. V. It is well explained by Grimm (Lex. N. T.), 
by “at eur rogo? nonne erant omnes, ete.’ Alf. says that it expresses “a negation 
of the uncertainty implied in the question—a ground why the question should not 
have been asked at all’ That the two parts of ver. 16 are both interrogative is 
proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the interrogative character of vy. 17, 18.— 
The close connection of amei0eva and amoria is made clear both in these verses 
and in iv. 1-6, azvoria is the foundation of a7etFeva, 


CHAP. IV. 475 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 2. Better attested, it is true, than the nominative singular ovykexpauévoc 
(ovyxexpauuévoc), which the Recepta presents, is the accusative plural of this par- 
ticiple, inasmuch as A BC D* M, 23, al., Theodor. Mops. read cvyxekepacuévove 
(ouvaexepacuévovc), and D*** E K L, 4, 6, 10, al. plur., Cyr. Alex. (semel) Macar, 
Chrys. Theodoret, Phot. al., cvyxekpapévove (ovykexpaypévovc), and also the 
majority of translations (Syr. poster. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. al.) render in the 
accusative. Griesbach therefore commended the accusative to notice. ouyKe- 
kpau(“)évove is adopted into the text by the edd. Complut. Antw. Plantin. 
Genev., by Matthaei and others; cvyxexepacuévovc, by Lachm. Tisch. 1, and 
Alford. The accusative is, notwithstanding, to be rejected, as opposed to the con- 
text and unmeaning. This reading being accepted, we have as exposition either : 
“but the word listened to did not profit them, since they were not mixed in faith 
or joined together in one with Joshua and Caleb, who heard, i. e. were obedient to 
the word listened to” (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius. Hammond, Cramer, Mat- 
thaei, al.). But this interpretation is in conflict with iii. 15 ff., according to which 
the whole people of Israei brought out of Egypt by Moses is described as rebel- 
lious and unbelieving; between two classes thereof, on the other hand, a class of 
believers and another of unbelievers, no distinction whatever is made. Moreover, 
in connection with this interpretation, toi¢ axotcaow suffers transmutation into a 
notion which it cannot have, regarded in itself only, much less here, seeing its 
evident correspondence with the preceding axoye. Not less untenable is the 
modification of this construction with Alford, who, rejecting all reference to 
Joshua and Caleb, will have to/¢ akotoacw taken, not at all in the historic sense, 
but, like John y. 25, as an indication of the category: “6 Adyo¢ tie aKxoge having 
been mentioned in the general sense of the word heard, oi axotoavrec is also in the 
general sense of its hearers, and the assumption is made that the word heard has 
naturally recipients, of whom the normal characteristic is faith. And so these 
men received no benefit from the word of hearing, because they were not one in 
faith with its hearers; did not correspond, in their method of receiving it, with 
faithful hearers, whom it does profit;” as, accordingly, Alford himself frankly 
confesses that he does not feel satisfied with this explanation, and is only driven 
to adopt it on the ground of critical and grammatical difficulties,—difficulties of 
the latter kind, nevertheless, do not exist, and those urged by Alford are easily 
solved. Or else a passive notion is substituted for the active toic axoicacw, So 
already Theodore of Mopsuestia, who thinks toi¢ axovofeicw' must be read (in 
Nov. Test. Commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt Coll. O. Fr. Fritzsche, Turici 
1847, p. 166: pydé yap tic otécHw apkeiv aiTe tTHv éexayyediav TOV wEA?A6VTWV, GoTEp 
ovdé Exeivoig: ob Yap Zoav Kata THY TioTLY ToOlC ETayyEADELoL CVA MmEVOL: 
b0ev otTwE avayvworéioy’ uy Ov) KEKEpacuéevO’E TH TioTeEL TOC AKOVO= 


1 Also in one cursive ms. (Cod. 71) is found tots axovaGetouv. 


476 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Weiov, iva ein taic mpoc avtove yeyernuévaig Exayyediate Tov Aeov did Mwoéwc) ; 
further, as it appears, Theodoret, since—although in our editions toi¢ axobcacw 
precedes—he makes use of the words: ti yap wvycev q Tov Geov émayyedia Tov¢ 
taityv Setauévovc, wy TioT@¢ deEauévovg Kai TH TOV Geo Suvdper tebappyKérag Kat 
olov Toic Heo’ Adyore avakpabévrac; and recently Bleek, who, led thereto by Noes- 
selt’s remark on Theodoret’s exposition of Heb. iv. 2 (Thed. Opp. t. iii., Hal. 1771, 
-p- 566, note 1), conjectures Toi¢ akovopuaccv, For such alteration of the text, 
however, there exists not the slightest diplomatic justification. We must there- 
fore regard the accusative plural as having arisen from a transcriber’s error, to 
which the preceding ékeivovg gave occasion, and look upon the nominative singu- 
lar of the Recepta ovykekpapévog, which yields an excellent sense (see the 
exposition), as that which was originally written by the author. Rightly, there- 
fore, is the Recepta defended by Mill, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche (p. 24 sqq.), 
and others, and also received again into the text by Tisch. 2 (cuykexpapévoc), 7 
(cvvKexpapévoc), and 8 (cuvKexepacuévoc), Nor is it by any means so badly attested 
that one could assert, with Bleek, that it could “claim not much more authority 
than as being a not improbable conjecture.” For it is supported by the testimony 
of the Peshito, which in antiquity surpasses any of our Mss., as well as by the 
Codex Sinaiticus, which has 7 ovvkexepacuévoc. It is found, besides, in the Vulg. 
It. Erp., as well as with Cyr. Alex. (sem.) [Theodoret (Hervet.)] Lucif. and in 
five cursives (17, 31, 37, 41, 114)—Ver. 3. eicepyducba yap] A C: eioepyoueba 
ovv. But with an exhortation, the following oi mvotetoavtec is irreconcilable, 
instead of which wvotevovtes or dia wictewe must be placed.—Ver. 7. Elz. Wet- 
stein, Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf.: eipyrac. But in favor of tpoeipytat, which 
is indirectly supported also by zpoeipyxev in B, 73, 80, the preponderating 
authority of A C D* E*8, 17, 23, 31, al., Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Al. 
Chrys. Theodoret. Lucif. Bed. is decisive. Commended already by Grotius, Ben- 
gel, Griesbach, Rightly adopted into the text by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. 
Approved also by Reiche—Ver. 10. azd tév épywv aitov] D* E, Syr. poster. 
Cyr. Chrys. ms.: a76 Tavt@v Tov €pywov aivtov, Expansion from ver. 4.— 
Ver. 12. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: puyje te kal mvebtmatoc. But 
ve is wanting in A B C H L ® (in which last originally only pepiopod Kai 
mvevjlato¢ was written, which, however, was already supplemented, as it would 
appear by the first hand, by a wuy7e inserted before «ai), 3,73, al., with Origen 
(three times), Athan. Euseb. Chrys. Theodoret, Cyril Al. (eleven times), John 
Damasc. Theoph. and many others. Condemned already by Bengel and Gries- 
-bach, [Doubted by Owen.] Rightly rejected by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. 
Addition for the sake of uniformity with the following clause: dpuév te Kai 
xve2@v, in which te is wanting with no witnesses—Ver. 15. Instead of the 
meTeLpapévov, commended by Griesbach and adopted by Matthaei, Tisch. 1, 
2, 7, and Bloomfield, as earlier by Mill and Bengel (also preferred by Reiche), the 
meTerpacmévov of the Recepta, supported by A B D EX, Origen (four times), 
Chrys., al., is to be retained, with Wetstein, Scholz, Lachm. Alford, and Tisch. 8. 
For the context demands the notion of having been tempted, for which, in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. ii. 18, xi. 17, 37), only the verb mwecpdafecbar is 
used, while tevwecpamévov would yield the totally unsuitable sense: who had 
made attempts.—Ver. 16. Elz.: 2 ¢0v. The form of the word, preferred by Tisch. 
Bloomf. and Alford, é2eo¢, is, however, required by A B C* D* K 8, 17, 71, al: 
pl., Antioch. 


cHar, ay. 1. 477 


Vv. 1-13. Thus, then, the promise of entering into God’s rest is still 
unfulfilled. The promise yet avails for the Christians. - Let, therefore, 
the readers be careful, lest they, too, by disobedience and unbelief forfeit 
the proffered salvation. 

Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note LL. pages 495-497.] Exhortation to the 
readers, deduced from the historic fact, iii. 15-19, and softened by the form 
of community with the readers adopted by the author, which, however, is 
involuntarily abandoned again at the close of the verse.—®oB7fapev ov | 
[LI a.] Let us therefore be apprehensive —Indication not of the mere being 
afraid, but of the earnest endeavor, based upon the fear of coming short of 
the proposed goal.1—xararermouévng . + avrov] is made by Cramer and 
Ernesti dependent on torepyKévar, against which, however, the anarthrous 
participle in itself suffices to decide. It is parenthetical, and Kkataneirouévns 
with emphasis preposed : while there yet remains promise of entering into 
His rest. But a promise remains so long as it has not yet received its 
fulfillment. For with its fulfillment it ceases to be a promise, loses its 
existence—inasmuch as the character of the future essential to it has then 
become present. Erroneously do Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Strigel, 
Hyperius, Estius, Schlichting, S. Schmidt, Limborch, Braun, Semler, 
Carpzoy, al., explain : “by neglect or non-observance of the promise.” 
For, although catadeimery can signify that (comp. Acts vi. 2; Baruch 
iv. 1), yet in that case the article t7¢ could not have been wanting before 
érayyediac; and certainly also an active (katadeipacg THY érayyediar) 
would have been chosen in place of the passive participle. Finally, against 
the latter explanation, and in favor of that above given, pleads the 
amodeimerat, vv. 6, 9.—avrov] not of Christ (Rambach, Chr. F. Schmid), but 
of God. This is required by the connection, alike with that which pre- 
cedes (iii. 11, 18) as with that which follows (vv. 3-5, 10).—7 kataravoic | 
the repose and blessedness which belong to God Himself, and which 
~ shall become the portion of believing Christians in the epoch of consum- 
mation beginning with the coming again of Christ.—doxq borepnxévar| should 
appear [be seen] to have come short, i.e. to have failed of attaining to the 
catéravorc. The infinitive perfect characterizes that which, with the 
dawn of the Parousia, has become an historically completed, definite 
fact. doh botepyxéva, however, does not stand pleonastically in place of 
the bare toreph or botepyon (Michaelis, Carpzov, Abresch, al.), nor is it 
placed “because, in connection with the question whether and where the 
iorepnkévat exists as & concluded, and therefore irreparable, fact, the human 
perception does not extend beyond a mere videtur ” (Kurtz); for it is not 
here a case of a question to be decided by men still living upon earth. It 
serves rather, as the videatur often added in Latin, to give a more refined 
and delicate expression to the discourse. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16. Errone- 
ously, however, Delitzsch, that in dom there is contained not only 4 


1Galvin: Hie nobis commendatur timor, peamus. Metuendum ergo, non quia trepi- 
non qui fidei certitudinem excutiat, sed tan- dare aut diffidere nos oporteat quasi incertos 
tam incutiat sollicitudinem, ne securi tor- de exitu, sed ne Dei gratiae desimus. 


478 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


softening, but, at the same time, also an accentuation of the expression ; 
the sense being: “they are to take earnest heed, lest haply i should even 
seem that this or the other has fallen short.” For the augmenting “ even ” 
is only arbitrarily imported—Grotius explains dox@ by: “ne cui vestrum 
libeat,’ for which, however, the construction with the dative (dox@ sor) 
would have been required, and to which, moreover, the infinitive perfect 
does not lend itself. Schéttgen finally, Baumgarten, Schulz, Paulus, 
Stengel, Ebrard,and Hofmann take doxj in the sense of opinetur. The 
author is thus supposed to be warning the readers against the delusion 
that they were too late, i.e. that they lived at a time when all the prom- 
ises had long been fulfilled, and no further means of salvation was to be 
expected. But the linguistic expression in itself is decisive against this 
interpretation. The author could not then have put ¢oBybapuev obv, pyrore, 
but must have written 7 ody goBybduev borepyxévar, OY something similar. 
Moreover, the whole historic situation of the readers of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews is out of keeping with this view. It was not therein a question 
of consoling and calming those who still despaired of being able at all to 
attain to salvation, but of the warning correction of those who were want- 
ing in the assurance of conviction that faith in Christ is the sufficient and 
only way to salvation. Only a warning to the readers, not by their own 
behavior, like the fathers, to incur the loss of salvation, can therefore be 
contained in ver. 1. 

Ver. 2. [LI 6.] corroborates in its first half the xaradevrouévye, ver. 1, 
while the second half shows the danger of the torepyxévac in the example 
of others. The emphasis in the first half lies upon éopvév edyyyeAropuévor. 
The sense is not: for we, too, like them, have promise (to express this the 
addition of #ueic after cai yap would have been called for), but: for 
promise (sc. of entering into the Kardzavoi, cf. vv. 1, 8) have we indeed, 
even as they (the fathers), se. had it—Most arbitrarily is the meaning of 
this and the following verse apprehended by Ebrard. According to 
Ebrard, ver. 2 ff. proclaims as the reason why the Jews did not attain the 
promised kardravoic, not their “subjective unbelief,’ but “the objective 
imperfection of the Old Testament revelation.” With the second half of 
ver. 2, namely, a gradation (!) is supposed to begin, and the progress of 
thought to be as follows: “The word which we have received is even in- 
finitely better than the word which the Israelites received through Moses. 
For, first, the word spoken by Moses was unable to bring the people to 
faith—it remained external to them; it set forth a promise, it is true, and 
also attached a condition, but it communicated no strength to fulfill this 
condition (vv. 2-5, comp. vv. 12, 18); but, secondly, the promise there 
given was not even in its purport the true one; there, earthly rest was 
promised; here, spiritual and everlasting rest (vv. 6-10).” That the con- 
text affords no warrant for the bringing out of such a meaning is self-evi- 
dent. For neither does the author here distinguish such twofold word of 
promise, nor a twofold xararavorc, nor can Adyog . . . pa ovyKekpayévoc 
signify a word which “ could not prove binding.”—Erroneous, too, is the 
view of the connection on the part of Delitzsch, to whom Riehm (Lehrbegr. 


CHAP. Iv. 2. 479 


des Hebrderbr. p. 798 ff.) accedes in all essential particulars. According 
to Riehm, the (as yet unproved) presupposition is first provisionally ex- 
pressed in the parenthesis, ver. 1, in a simply assertory manner, viz. that 
there is still in existence a promise of entering into the rest of God, a 
promise of which the fulfillment is yet outstanding, and this presupposi- 
tion is then repeated, ver. 2, in other expressions of a more general bear- 
ing, no doubt, but essentially in the same way of simple assertion. Upon 
this, however, the author now wishes to furnish proof that such presuppo- 
sition is fully warranted. Accordingly, ver. 3, he formulates that presup- 
position in the most definite manner, inasmuch as in the opening words 
of ver. 3, eloepyoucba . . . mioTevoavtec, he lays down the theme which is to 
be proved in the sequel. This proof is afforded in the following way: the 
rest of God has existed long; nevertheless, in the oath of God, mentioned 
in the words of the psalm, a rest of God is spoken of as yet future, and of 
a truth it is one and the same rest of God which, according to Gen. ii. 2— 
in so far as God enjoys it alone—has existed from the beginning of the 
world, and, according to the word of the psalm,—in so far as the people 
of God are to participate therein,—is one yet approaching. Although 
thus the long present rest of God was the aim and end of the creative 
activity of God, yet it is not the final aim which God has proposed to 
Himself. On the contrary, it is clearly apparent, from a comparison of 
the word of God pronounced upon the Israelites in the time of Moses, a 
word confirmed by an oath, with the account of the rest of God on the 
seventh day, that, according to the gracious designs of God, the rest, 
which He has enjoyed alone from the foundation of the world, should 
eventually become a rest of God which He enjoys in communion with 
His people. It is therefore indubitably certain, that even after the com- 
pletion of the work of creation and the ensuing of the rest of God, there 
is still something outstanding [unfulfilled], an azoAecrduevov, and this con- 
‘sists in the fact that some, received by God into communion with Him- 
self, are made partakers of that repose of God. This view is a mistaken 
one, because—(1) As regards the assumed proof, the assertion that in the 
oath of God, spoken of in the words of the psalm, mention is made of a 
- yet future rest of God, is entirely untrue. Not of a particular form of the 
rest of God, which is still future, is the discourse, but only the fact is 
represented as future that it is shared on the part of men who enter into 
it. For a rest of God which has already existed long is not opposed to a 
rest of God which is still future, nor is the rest of God, mentioned Gen. ii., 
distinguished as of another kind than that mentioned in the psalm. On 
the contrary, the rest of God, or—what is identical therewith—the Sab- 
bath-rest of God, has existed in fact and without change from the time of 
the completion of the works of creation, and this same rest of God it is, 
the participation in which was once promised to the Israelites on the con- 
dition of faith, and now upon the same condition is promised to the 
Christians ; it is a question therefore only of the Christians taking warn- 
ing from the example of the fathers, and not, like them, losing the 
promised blessing through unbelief. (2) That the author was desirous of 





480 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


still proving the xatateirecbar érayyeAiay, cannot at all be supposed. For 
this was a fact which, as self-evident from that which precedes, stood in 
no need of a demonstration; it is therefore expressed not only ver. 1, but 
also ver. 6,in a mere subsidiary clause, consequently in the form of log- 
ical subordination ; and even ver. 9, in which it is introduced in an appar- 
ently independent form, decides nothing against our explanation, because 
ver. 9, while forming a certain conclusion to that which precedes, yet 
contains only the logical substructure for the exhortation attaching itself 
afresh at ver. 11. That at which the author alone aimed, in connection 
with ver. 2 ff., was therefore the impressive confirmation of the paraenesis, 
ver. 1; and just this paraenetic main tendency of our section likewise fails 
of attaining due recognition in connection with the explanation of Delitzsch 
and Riehm. But when Delitzsch thinks he can support his view, that the 
Kataherrouévnc éxayyediac, ver. 1, is first proved in the sequel, by declaring 
the otherwise to be accepted “thought that the promise of entering into 
God’s rest has remained without its fulfillment in the generation of the 
wilderness, and thus is still valid,” to be “entirely false,” and exclaims : 
“What logic that would be! The generation of the wilderness perished 
indeed, but the younger generation entered into Canaan, came to Shiloh 
(the place in the heart of the land, which has its name from the rest, Josh. 
xviil. 1), and had now its own fixed land of habitation, whither Jehovah 
had brought and planted it, and where He fenced it in (2 Sam. vii. 10);” 
such conclusion would be justified only if the author had not understood 
the promise given to the fathers in the time of Moses, of entering into 
God’s kataravoic, at the same time in a higher sense, but had regarded it 
as fulfilled by the occupation of Canaan under Joshua; such, however, 
according to the distinct statement of ver. 8, is not the case.—«a/] after 
kabarep, the ordifiary «ai after particles of comparison. See Winer, p. 
409 [E. T. 440].—6 Adyoe tie axoge] [LI ¢.] Periphrasis of the notion éray- 
yedia, ver. 1: the-word of that which is heard (axof in the passive sense, as 
Rom. x. 16; Gal. iii. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 18; John xii. 38), 7.e. the word of 
promise which was heard by them, or proclaimed to them. This peri- 
phrasis is chosen in order already at this stage to point out that it was by 
the fault of the fathers themselves that the word of promise became for 
them an unprofitable word, one which did not receive its fulfillment. It 
remained for them a word heard only externally, whereas, if it was to 
profit them, they must manifest receptiveness for the same, must beliey- 
ingly and confidingly appropriate the same. This culpability on the part 
of the fathers themselves is brought into direct relief by the participial 
clause 7 ovyKkekpamévoc TH TioTeLr TOi¢g Akovcacry, containing the in- 
dication of cause to otk OdéAnoev, Wherein rH riorec forms an emphatic 
opposition to the preceding rie dxoge. The sense is: because it was not for 
the hearers mingled with faith; the dative roic axotcacw denoting the sub- 
ject, in relation to which the Ww ovyk. Th miorec took place. See Winer, p. 
206 [E. T. 219]... But that the fault of this not being mingled was not in 


1Thus interpret Erasmus, translation, Cal- boreh, Bengel, Kypke, Storr, Stuart, Reiche, 
vin, Castellio, Gerhard, Owen, Calov, Lim- Comm. Crit. p. 30; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He 


CHAPS EV. 3; 481 


the word but in the men, was naturally understood from the connection. 
ovykexpauévoc is not to be connected with roi¢ axotcacw, so that rq miores 
would have to be taken as the dativus instrumentalis : “ because it did not, by 
means of faith, mingle with them that heard it, become fully incorporated 
with them” (Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Dorscheus, 8. Schmidt, Wolf, 
Rambach, Michaelis, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Valckenaer, Klee, Paulus, 
Stein, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner). For manifestly the 
centres of thought for the adversative clause lie in r7¢ akoje and rH 
miotel, While 7toi¢ axotoaow only takes up again the indication of the per- 
sons, already known to us from the éxetvouc, although now as characterizing 
these persons in attaching itself to t#¢ axoye—roic axotcaccv, however, 
not the mere demonstrative pronoun, is put by the author in order thus 
once more to place hearing and believing in suggestive contrast. Further, 
the author did not write 7 ovyKexpapévoc th xiotes TOV AkovoarvTor, be- 
cause he would thereby have conveyed the impression that the Israelites 
in the wilderness possessed indeed zioric, but the word of promise which 
was heard did not blend into a unity with the same; whereas by means 
of uy ovyKexpapévoc tH miotee Toig akotcaorv he denies altogether the 
presence of iore in them. 

Ver. 3. [LI d.] Confirmation, not of xatadevtouévne éxayyediac x.7.2., Ver. 
1 (Bengel), nor of kai yap éopev edyyyedouévor, ver. 2 (de Wette, Bloomfield, 
Bisping), and just as little of the two clauses of ver. 2 taken together 
(Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerb. p. 799; Moll), but of r@ riorev, 
ver. 2. So also Bleek, Alford, and Kurtz. What Riehm (p. 800, note) 
alleges against this interpretation—viz. that the author has already, in iii. 
15 ff. (specially iii. 19), shown clearly enough that the Israelites in the 
wilderness could not enter into the promised rest on account of their 
unbelief, that it was therefore impossible that a special proof for this fact 
should once more be required—does not apply ; because this very toreverv 
was the main question, about the quite special accentuation of which he 
is seen from the context to be concerned. For surely the whole disquisi- 
tion, iii. 7-iv. 18, has its all-combining centre precisely in the endeavor tc 
animate to riore the readers, who were in danger of sinking, like the 
fathers, into azoria. The emphasis rests, therefore, upon of meoret- 
cavrec, andthe sense is: for into rest enter just those of us who have manifested 
faith. For ot reoreboarvtec cannot signify: if we have displayed 
faith (Bohme, de Wette, Bisping); this must have been expressed 
by the anarthrous moretcavtec. On the contrary, of motetoavtec adds 
a special characterization of the subject of cicepyduefa, and has the 
aim of limiting the quite generally expressed “we” to a definite class of 
us. The present eicep xyéue6a is employed with reference to the certainty 
of that to be looked for in the future, and oi micretoavtec, not of moTebovTec, 
is placed, because the crete must have already preceded as an historic 
fact, before the sicépyechac can be accomplished.—xafa¢  eipyKev K.7.A. | 


brderbr. p. 696, note; Maier, and others. which is open to no grammatical objection 
Heinsius, Semler, Kuinoel, al., take tots (cf. Winer, p. 206 [E. T. p. 219]), and makes no 
akovoac. as equivalent tovmd Tavakovoavtwy, alteration in the sense, 


31 


482 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


[LI e.] Scripture proof for the first half of ver. 3, from the already cited 
words of Ps. xcv. 11. Wrongly is xa#a¢ eipyxev connected by Piscator with 
ver. 1, by Brochmann and Bleek II. with ver. 2. For to suppose paren- 
theses before it is unwarranted. In quite a contorted manner Hefmann 
(p. 187): with xa6o¢ eipyxev begins a protasis, which finds its apodosis in 
mahw tiwva dpiler juépav, ver. 7; and even the fact that the latter is apodosis 
to émet arodeixerae does not, according to him, preclude the possibility of 
this construction, because this second protasis is connected by oiv with 
the first, as a deduction from the same !—eipyxev] sc. 6 be6¢.—év TH opyh pov] 
sc. at their unbelief and obstinate perverseness, which naturally suggested 
itself to the readers from the passage of the psalm more copiously adduced 
in the third chapter, and the reasoning of the author there attached to it. 
—kaitot Tov épywv ard KataBoAge Kédopov yevnbévtwr] although the works were 
convpleted from the creation of the world ; and accordingly the ckataravoic 
of God was something long present and lying in readiness, in which the 
Israelites, if they had been believing, might well have obtained part. The 
words, therefore, serve to point out the deep significance of the divine 
oath." Wrongly are they taken ordinarily as epexegesis to ty Kataravoiv 
pov, in supplying xararavow afresh after cairo. Then either trav épyov 
x.7.2. is made dependent on the xatdravow supplied, in that cairo is taken, 
contrary to linguistic usage, in the sense of “et quidem:” “into the rest, 
namely, from the works which had been completed from the creation of 
the world ” (so Schlichting, 8. Schmidt, Wolf, Carpzov, Kypke, Baumgar- 
ten, Stuart, Heinrichs, Klee, Bloomfield), to which construction, more- 
over, the repetition of the article ra» after tov épywv would have been in 
any case necessary; or else tov ipywv . . . yevnbévtwy is regarded as a geni- 
tive absolute : “namely (or even, although), into a rest, which ensued upon 
the works of cyeation being completed” (so Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Lim- 
borch, Cramer, Bohme, Bisping), which however, in like manner, must 
grammatically have been otherwise expressed. But, in general, the 
author cannot here have been at all occupied with the subjoining of a 
definition with regard to the kind of rest which was meant, since he does 
not anywhere distinguish several kinds of rest, but without further remark 
“presupposes that the xarazavore which ensued for God after the comple- 
tion of the works of creation is identical with that once promised 
to the Israelites and now promised to the Christians—rév épyov] 
sc. tov Oeov. The necessity for thus supplementing is apparent from 
ver. 4; comp. also ver.10. Very arbitrarily, and forcing in a thought 
entirely foreign to the context, Ebrard understands rav épywv of the 
works of men, supposing that with kaOdc eipyxev “the author proceeds 
to show to what extent even the O. T. itself points out the insuffi- 
ciency of the law and its épya”’ (!), regards rav épywv as antithesis to the 
preceding oi moreboarrec (!), and finds the thought, “that all that which 


1The aim in xaitoe tay épywy k.7.A. is not, as tution of the Sabbath] into the rest here in- 
Bleek thinks, to prove: “that men had not tended by God;” for this was a truth which 
perchance even then, after the creation of hardly steod in need of any proof. 
the world, entered with Him [se. by the insti- 


CHAP. Iv. 4-6. 483 
can be calle€ épya has been wrought from the time of the creation of the 
world, but has not sufficed to bring mankind to the kardravoic, to a con- 
dition of satisfied repose,” whence follows “that an entirely new way of 
salvation—not that of human doing and human exertion, but that of 
faith in God’s saving deed—is necessary in order to attain to the xard- 
ravowe” (!).—ard KataBorge Kéonov| from the foundation of the world, i. e. since 
the world began. Comp. ix. 26; Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 34; Luke xi. 50; Rev. 
Rt. 8) KVT.'S 

Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-10, see Note LII., pages 497, 498.] Scripture proof for 
the thought implicitly contained in xairo «.7.4., ver. 8, viz. that the actual 
existence of the divine kartazavoic, from which the Israelites were to be 
excluded, has not been wanting. [LII a, b.]—The citation is from Gen. ii. 
2, according to the LX-X., with some non-essential variations.—To cipyKev 
we have to supply as subject, not 7 ypag7 (BOhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, 
Bisping, al.), but 6 6ed¢. For although, in the citation, God is spoken of 
in the third person, yet in eipyxev, ver. 4, the subject must be the same as 
In Kai év Toit TaAL, Sc. eipyKev, ver. 5; in this latter passage, however, the 
subject can only be 6 6eéc, as is proved by the following yov.—zov] see on 
li. 6.—repi tHe €Bd6un¢] with regard to the seventh day. 

Ver. 5. Renewed contrastful presentation of the relations of the Jewish 
forefathers to this existing rest of God: “And yet He says again in this 
place (namely, the passage already cited ver. 3): they shall not enter into 
my rest.” —év tob7»] stands substantively, without requiring a supplement- 
ing of rérm (Kuinoel), or ypdve (Abresch), or wadue (Carpzov). Comp. év 
étépw, V. 6. 

Vv. 6,7. The author, founding his reasoning, on the one hand, on the 
truthfulness of God, and on the other, on the actual state of matters de- 
clared from a//d, ver. 2, to kxataravoiv pov, ver. 5, now returns to the 
statements: katadectomévne émayyediac, ver. 1, and cal yap éopuev 
evny yeAtomévor Kabadrep Kaketvor, Ver. 2, in order, by means of the open- 
ing words of the psalm cited, to render clear the truth contained in these 
statements concerning the non-fulfillment of the promise as yet, and also 
the necessity for not closing the heart against the same.2—The sense is: 
since then it still remains, i.e. is to be expected with certainty, that some 
enter therein (inasmuch, namely, as God carries also into effect that which 
He promises), and the earlier recipients of the promise did not enter in because 
of their unbelief, He marks out anew a definite day, etc. From this relation 
of the first half of the protasis to the second, as that of a general postulate 


1Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 590]; Buttmann, 
p. 71 [E. T. 81]. 

2 Ebrard has here, too, entirely misappre- 
hended the connection. He says: “ Vv. 6-8, 
the author passes to a new thought, to a new 
point of comparison between the work of 
Christ and the work of Moses. The oppo- 
sition between the work of the one and that 
of the other is twofold. . . . The first imper- 
fection in the work of Moses consisted (iy. 


2-5) in the fact that his work conferred no 
power for fulfillment—did not eombine by 
faith with the hearers,—and on that account 
did not avail to lead into rest; the second 
consists in the fact that the rest itself, into 
which the Israelites might have been led by 
Moses, and then by Joshua were led in, was 
only an earthly typical rest, whereas Christ 
leads into an actual rest, which intrinsically 
corresponds to the Sabbath-rest of God.” 


484 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


to a special historic fact, is explained also the indefinite rcvd¢ in the 
first clause. Wrongly Delitzsch, according to whom uvd¢ signifies: 
“others than those.” Some, again, find in ézel oby arodeimera twa 
eiceAOeiv the meaning: since then the promise, of entering into His rest, is 
still left, 7. e. awaits its fulfillment. So substantially Bleek : “since it now 
remains, that the divine rest has not yet been already closed by the com- 
plete (?) fulfillment of the prophecy relating thereto, in such wise that no 
more entrance exists for them.” Against this, however, pleads the fact 
that the author would then have illogically co-ordinated, the one with the 
other, the two protases ver. 6, since the first would surely contain the 
result of the second. For the sequence of thought would then be: the 
former recipients of the promise came short of attaining salvation, and the con- 
sequence thereof is that the xararavowe stands open for others. It must thus 
have been written: éret obv dmodeimerae tivac eloeAbeiv eicg aitHv, TOV 
mpoTepov evayyeAlobévtoav ovK eioeAbdvTwv Ot anreiBerav.—oi rpdrEepov 
evayyedobévrec] sc. the Israelites in the wilderness. 

Ver. 7. The apodosis. We have not to construe in such wise that the 
first ofuepov shall be taken as apposition to juépav: “ He marks out, there- 
fore, again a definite day (fixes anew a term), namely, ‘a to-day,’ in that 
—as was before observed—He says in David, so long time after, ‘ To-day, 
etc.” Nor yet so that the first ofmepov is connected with Aéyev: “ He 
fixes, therefore, again a day, in that, after so long a time, He says in 
David ‘to-day ;’ even as it says: ‘To-day, if ye, etc.’”? On the contrary, 
the first o/uepov already begins the citation; is then, however,—on account 
of the words parenthetically introduced by the author: év Aad... 
mpoeipnra,—resumed in the second ofuepov.—év Aavid] not: apud Davidem, 
i.e. in the Book of Psalms,’ but: in the person of David, as the instrument 
of which God neade use for speaking. The ninety-fifth psalm, although 
not Davidic, was ascribed to David in the superscription of the LXX., 
whom our.author follows.—uera tooodrov ypdvov] from the time of Joshua 
(ver. 8).—kafac mpoeipyra:] Reference to iii. 7 f., 15. 

‘Ver. 8. Justification of the wdAw twa dpifer juépav, ver. 7. If Joshua 
had already introduced into the rest of God, God would not still have 
spoken in the time after Joshua of a term (period) of entrance into the 
same.—abroic] sc. rode mpdrepov evayyediobévtac, ver. 6.—Kararatew] here (in 
accordance with the classic usage) transitive, as Ex. xxxiii. 14, Deut. iii. 
20, v. 33, al.: to lead into the rest—iAdAec] sc. 6 Oedc.—peTa ravra] belongs 
not to aAAye uépac (Hofmann, al.), but to éAdaé, and corresponds to the 
ueTa TOCOUTOY ypdovoy, ver. 7. 

Ver. 9. [LII c.] Deduction from vy. 7, 8, and consequently return to 
the first half of ver. 6. “Thus still remaining, still awaiting its advent, is 
a Sabbath rest for the people of God,” inasmuch, namely,—what the 
author in reasoning with the Hebrews might presuppose as admitted,—as 


1 Calvin, Beza’ Grotius, Jac. Cappellus, Carp- 3 Dindorf, Schulz, B6hme, Bleek, Ebrard, 


zov, Schulz, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, | Alford, Woerner, al.; with comparison of 
Maier, M’Caul, Moll. Rom. xi. 2, ix. 25. 


3 Zeger, Schlichting, Heinrichs, Stengel. 


CHAP. Iv. 7-11. 485 


from David’s time down to the present no one had entered into the 
xararavore of God. As Sabbatic rest the author characterizes the rest of 
God, in adherence to the thought of ver.4. As a type of the everlasting 
blessedness do the Rabbins also regard the Sabbath.’—dpa] at the begin- 
ning of a sentence is, in prose, foreign to the classics. Comp. however, 
Rom. x. 17; 2 Cor. vii. 12; Luke xi. 48; Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 598]; Butt- 
mann, p. 318 [E. T. 371].—The expression caf Parropoc (from cafBarifer, 
Naw, to observe the Sabbath, Ex. xvi. 30, al.) only here and with Plutarch, De 
Superstit. c. 3.—r@ Aap tov Gbeov] to the people which appertains to God, is 
recognized and treated by Him as His people, since it has believ- 
ingly devoted itself to Him. Comp. Gal. vi. 16: 6 ‘Iopa7ya rou Oeov. 

Ver. 10. [LII d.] There is not an establishing of the reasoning in ver. 
9 by a reference to the essence of the Sabbatic rest (Delitzsch and Riehm, 
Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 804), but justification of the expression oaa- 
riouoc, employed ver. 9. For not that which constitutes the nature of the 
Sabbath is here brought out, but the fact that in the case supposed a 
xararavew can be ascribed to man, even as to God. Wrongly (because at 
least clocAfav yap cic THY KaTdravowy abTov «7.2. Must have been written) 
does Schulz refer 6 yap eiceAAdv to 6 Aadc: “and when it has entered,” 
etc. And just as wrongly, because the context affords no point of support 
for the same, do Owen, Alting, Starck, Valckenaer, and more recently 
Ebrard and Alford, find in 6 cice26év a designation of Christ, in connection 
with which the épya are then understood of the redemption completed, or 
also of the sufferings and death undergone. On the contrary, ver. 10 con- 
tains a universal proposition: for whoever has entered into His (namely, 
God’s) rest, has also on his part attained to rest from his works (the burdens 
and toils of the earthly life:? even as God from His own (works, the works 
of creation); for him has thus the Sabbath of everlasting blessedness 
set in. 
Vy. 11-13. [On Vv. 11-18, see Note LIII., page 498.] Conclusion by 
way of warning admonition.—orovddcwpev] not: festinemus (Vulg.), but: 
let our earnest effort be directed to this end—oiv] [LIII a.] deduces the 
inference from all that has been hitherto said, from iii. 7 onwards.— 
éxeivnv tiv Kataravow]| that very kataravore, of which the discourse has 
heretofore been, which was described as a karéravoe of God, as one 
already promised to the fathers, and then again to us, as a possession 
which they, on account of their disobedience and unbelief, failed to obtain, 


1Comp. e. g. Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 95.4: Dixe- 
runt Israélitae: Domine totius mundi, os- 
tende nobis exemplar mundi futuri. Re- 
spondit ipsis Deus S..B.: illud exemplar est 
sabbatum. R. D. Kimchi et R. Salomo in Ps. 
xeii.: Psalmus eantici in diem Sabbati, quod 
hic psalmus pertineat ad seculum futurum, 
quod totum sabbatum est et quies ad vitam 
aeternam. See Wetstein and Schéttgen ad 
loc. 

2Comp. LXX. Gen. iii. 17: émuxatapatos 4 


yi év Tois Epyots gov; V. 29: obtos Stavaravcer 
Has amd Tov épywv nuav Kal awd Tov AUTO 
TOV XElpOv NUaV Kal amo THS yHS, Hs KaTypa- 
caro KUptos 6 Beds. Comp. also Rev. xiv. 13. 
What is meant is not the works or labor 
“of sanctification” (Tholuck, Grimm, Theol. 
Literaturbl. to the Darmst. A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 
29, p. 664); and still less the ritual ordinances 
of Judaism (Braun, Akersloot, Cramer, Sem- 
ler, and Griesbach). 


486 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

but which is still open to us as an ideal Sabbatic rest and everlasting 
blessedness, if we manifest faith and confidence.—iva py év TO aito tu 
brodeiyuate méon THC amefeiac] lest any one fall into the same example of 
unbelief, i.e. lest any one fall into the same obstinate perversity as the 
fathers, and like them become a warning example for others.) rimrecy 
év is also quite usual in classical authors; see Passow and Pape ad vocem. 
From rimrecv eic it is distinguished only by a greater degree of signifi- 
cance in that it does not merely like this express the falling into some- 
thing, but also the subsequent lying in the same. Others,’ take réoy 
absolutely : “fall, i.e. to be brought to ruin, perish.” In that case éy is 
explained either by per (Wolf, Stengel, Ewald, al.), or “comformably to 
[gemiss]” (Tholuck), or propter (Carpzov), or, what with this construction 
would alone be correct, of the condition, the state in which one is (Bleek, de 
Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Maier, Moll): “in giving the same 
example.” But this whole construction is artificial. Opposed to it is 
likewise the position of zéoy. For had this word such emphasis as it 
must have so soon as it is taken in the absolute sense, it would not have 
been inserted in such subordinate, unaccentuated fashion between the 
other words, but have been introduced at the very beginning of the 
proposition : iva uA ti wéon K.T.A. 

Vv. 12, 18. Warning demonstration of the necessity for compliance 
with the exhortation uttered ver. 11.3—6 Adyo¢ tov beot] the word of God. 
[LIII b.] By these words we have not* the hypostatic word of God, or 
Christ, as the second person of the Godhead. For although this mode of 
designating Christ in the case of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
according toi. 1-8, and on account of the points of contact he displays 
with Philo, can present nothing strange in itself, yet the expression was 

¢ 


1 Thus the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Cornelius tic basf%. According to Ebrard, the pre- 


a Lapide, Grotius, -Abresch, Alford, Kurtz, 
Hofmann, Woerner, and others. 

2As Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cap- 
pellus, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Hein- 
richs, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, 
Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the 
Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 664; the 
last-named because the expression “to fall 
into an example,” instead of “to afford an 
example,” is supposed to be a forced one,— 


the expression, however, is only a concise, 


one (see above),—and because mimre is 
probably chosen with a retrospective glance 
to iii. 17, the passage to which reference is 
here made, with the difference that the word 
there denoted the physical destruction. But 
such intention in connected with the choice 
of the word is not at all to be assumed), De- 
litzsch, Riehm (Lehrbeqr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
174), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald. 

8 Ebrard’s commentary here too abounds in 
quixotic caprice, such as disowns all linguis- 


ceding warning of ver. 11 is yet further en- 
forced, ver. 12, by the reminder that in our 
ease (!) that excuse (!) is removed, which, ac- 
cording to ver. 2 (!), still existed in the case 
of the contemporaries of Moses. For us 
nothing is wanting (!) on the part of the word 
of God; for (!) the word of God is living, pow- 
erful, penetrating into the soul; if we (!) 


~ should fall victims to unbelief, the guilt 


would rest upon ourselyes alone (!). Accord- 
ing to Ebrard, the genitive tov 6e00 forms an 
opposition to the first person plural orovéacw- 
wev (!), and ver. 12 a supplementary material 
opposition to ver. 2 (!). That “this profound 
and delicate connection has hitherto been 
overlooked by all‘ expositors” is natural 
enough. Even after Ebrard has discovered 
it, it will still remain unnoticed. 

4With many Fathers, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Thomas Aquinas, Lyra, Cajetan, 
Clarius, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. 
Cappellus, Gomar, Owen, Heinsius, Alting, 
Clericus, Cramer, Ewald, al. 


CHAP. IV. 12 487 


too unusual for it to be employed and understood without further indica- 
tion, in this special sense, where the connection did not even lead up ta 
it. Moreover, the predicates évepyfe, trouarepog «.7.2., and kpituxde (instead 
of kpitfe), seem better suited to an impersonal than a personal subject. The 
majority understand 6 Adyoc tov Geow of the word of God, as proclaimed 
and as preserved in Scripture. They refer it then either to the gospel,' or 
to the threatenings of God,? or, finally, to the threatenings and promises of God 
taken together. 6 Aédyoc tov Geo is to be understood quite generally : 
“that which God speaks,” as, indeed, the whole proposition, vv. 12, 13, 
contains a general sentence. But that “that which God speaks” was 
then, in its application to the case here specially coming under notice, 
the call to receptivity of heart repeatedly made by God through the 
psalmist, and the exclusion from His xardravore threatened in the event 
of obstinate disobedience and unbelief, was for the reader self-evident 
from the connection.—The word of God is characterized in progressive 
enhancement. It is called (av, living, on account of its inner vital power 
(not on account of its everlasting, intransitory continuance, Schlichting, 
Abresch; nor as “cibus ac nutrimentum, quod hominum animis vitam 
conservat,” Carpzoz; nor, in opposition to the rigid lifeless law, Ebrard) ; 
évepyhe, effective, on account of its asserting itself, manifesting itself vig- 
orously in the outer world. The latter is the consequence of the former, 
and both in this connection refer to the power of punishing its contemners, 
which is inherent in the word of God.—The penetrating sharpness of this 
power of punishment is described in ascending gradation in the sequel. 
—kai toudrepoc irép Tacav payatpav dictouov] and more trenchant than every 
(any) two-edged sword. trép after a comparative (Luke xvi. 8; Judg. xi. 
25, LXX. Cod. Vaticanus), like rapa, i. 4. wdyarpa dictopoc, a sword 
with twofold mouth, é.e. with an edge on both sides (aygorépwfev o&eia).4— 
The proof for the statement :, rowatepoc brép tacav payaipav dictouov, is CONn- 
‘tained in the words: kai dvixvobmevog aype uepiopov puyac Kat mvebwatoc, apuav 
re Kal pveaov] and piercing to the separating of soul and spirit, joints as well 
as marrow. [LIII ¢.] wepcoué¢ denotes the action of separating, and the 
separating subject is the word of God. Wrongly does Schlichting (comp. 
also BOhme) take it locally, or as reflexive : to the secret spot where soul and 
spirit separate. Such construction is to be rejected, as otherwise the clause 
following would have also to be explained in like manner: where joints 
and marrow separate. Joints and marrow, however, not being, in the 
human organization, things coming into direct contact, the thought would 
be inappropriate, whether we understand dpuév re Kai pveAdv in the literal 
or non-literal sense. Schlichting, to be sure, will make dpuév te Kai wredov 
no longer dependent upon epiouov, but take it as co-ordinate with pepiopod 


1 Cameron, Grotius, Wittich, Akersloot, Eb- iii. 16; Prov. v. 4. Comp. poudata dtorouos, 


rard, al. Rev. i. 16, ii. 12; LXX. Ps. cxlix. 6; Ececlus. 
2Schlichting, Michaelis, Abresch, B6hme, xxi. 3. Similarly, Eurip. Helen. 989: éuov 

Heinrichs, al. mpos frap doar Siatonov kipos trode; Oresh 
3 Beza, Schulz, Bisping, al. 1309: Simrvxa, Siotowa paoyava. 


4The same expression in the LXX. Judg. 


488 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


(“ ... ut gladius iste penetrare dicatur ad loca in homine abditissima, 
etiam illuc, ubi anima cum spiritu connectitur et ab eo dividitur, itemque 
ubi sunt membrorum compages et medullae’’). But for this distinction 
the repetition of ayp: before dpyov would have been necessary. An entire 
failure, finally, is also the method proposed by Hofmann! in order to 
preserve the local acceptation, in making uy kai rvebuatoc dependent on 
dpyav te kai prvedAov: “to the point at which it dissects and dissolves both 
joints and marrow of the inner life, the secret ligaments of its connection 
and the innermost marrow of its existence.” For then the readers would 
be required to understand an arrangement of the words which has not, as 
Hofmann thinks, perhaps “its parallel”? in Heb. vi. 1, 2, but which is, on 
the contrary, altogether impossible, on account of the addition of we propor 
already to Woyje kat rvedparoc, and therefore nowhere finds its analogon 
in the N. T., not to say in the Epistle to the Hebrews. All four words: 
Wuyic, Tvebpatos, dpuov, and pverdv, depend upon pepiouoi, and not 
a dividing of the soul from the spirit, of joinings or joints from the marrow, is 
intended, nor yet a dividing of the soul and spirit from joints and marrow 
(Bohme), but a dividing of the soul, the spirit, etc., each in itself is meant. 
The two last substantives, however, are not co-ordinate to the two first 
(Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Storr, Delitzsch, al.), but subordinate. For pvx% 
and mrvetpa, which are distinguished from each other as characterizing 
respectively the lower sensuous life and the higher life of the spirit, here 
set forth without any more special limitation the inner side of human 
life generally, in opposition to the cua or body, which latter alone an 
earthly sword is able to pierce, and dpyoi re xai pwvedoi isnot to be 
understood of the joints and marrow of the body,’ but of the ligaments and 
marrow of the ~vy# and wvevpa, is thus a figurative expression to de- 
note the innermost, most hidden depth of the rational life of man. In 
such transferred signification pveAd¢ is used also with the classics.* 


serving to their movement, and cuts through 


1 Schriftbew, I. 2 Aufl. p. 297, and likewise 
stillin his Comm. p. 192. : 

2So Delitasch still explains, who represents 
the author as giving expression to the grossly 
sensuous conception, regardless whether 
such conception is in harmony with the 
author’s refined mode of thought,—that the 
word of God points out “to man the antithe- 
istic forces of his bodily nature, which has 
become wholly, and to all the joints and 
marrow (cerebral marrow, spinal marrow, 
etc.), a seat of sin and death!” The expres- 
sion is supposed to adapt itself, without itself 
becoming figurative, to the figure of the 
paxatpa, Itis presupposed that the word of 
God has already accomplished its work of 
dissection (!) to the skeleton, with its bones 
and sinews (!), or_at- least presupposed that 
all, so far as this, is manifestly to be per- 
formed with ease. A stop, however, is not 
made here, but it further separates the joints 
ef the bones, with the sinews or tendons 


the bones themselves, so that the marrow 
they contain is laid bare. Thus, then, the 
word renders the whole man transparent to 
God and to himself, and unveils in sharpest 
and most rigid analysis his most psychico- 
spiritual and innermost physical (!) condi- 


‘tion; whereby it is then seen that, in so far 


as the man has not yet given seope to the 
work of grace, and in so far as the latter has 
not yet been able to accomplish itself, the 
marrow of the body ts as corrupt as the spirit, 
which is as it were the marrow of the soul, 
and the joints of the body as corrupt as the 
soul, which is as it were the joint of the 
spirit (!). 

8Comp. Themist. Orat. 32, p. 357: (o5v¥vy) 
elo Sedukuia €is aUTOV TOU TOY LUEAOY THS WUXIS § 
Burip. Hippol. 255f.: xpiv yap jetptas eis ad- 
AjAovs hiAtas OvyTovs avakipvacBar Kai MH Tpds 
akpov muedov Wux7s. 


CHAP. ive, WS! 489 


dpudc, however, a fastening together, uniting, joint, could likewise be em- 
ployed metaphorically, inasmuch as it receives its signification as joint of 
the human body only from the addition of rov cauarog or from the con- 
nection, but elsewhere occurs in the most varied combinations and rela- 
tions.'—It is, moreover, worthy of notice that Philo also ascribes to his 
divine Logos a like cutting and severing power. He calls the same rouev¢ 
Tov cuuravtwr, Which God has whetted to the most piercing sharpness, 
which on that account not only separates all sensuous things and pene- 
trates to the atoms, but even divides the supra-sensuous, separating the 
soul into the rational and irrational, the reason into the true and false, 
the perception into the clear and the obscure.2—«ai kputixdg EvOuuqcewv Kat 
évvorav kapdiac] and qualified to take cognizance of, or to judge (wrongly 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, al.: to condemn), the dispositions and thoughts of the 
heart.—ivOvujoeov |] Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25; Acts xvil. 29.—évvoidv] 1 Pet. iv. 1. 
Ver. 18. Transition from the word of God to God Himself. That the 
twofold airov and the ov, ver. 18, cannot be referred to Christ,’ follows 
from the correct interpretation of 6 Adyo¢ roi Geov, ver. 12. That, however, 
in general not the total notion 6 Adyo¢ rov Geov (so Ebrard still) can form the 
subject of the pronouns, ver. 18, but only the 6 @eé¢ to be deduced there- 
from, is evident from the expression toi¢ 6¢0a2oi¢ aitod, which is appro- 
priate only to the latter, not to the former. The transition from the word 
of God to God Himself was, moreover, a very natural one, inasmuch as 
in the word of God, God Himself is present and operative.—«rioic] as Rom. 
vili. 39, and frequently, in the most universal sense: any creature, and in- 
deed here not merely as regards its external existence, but also as regards 
its inner essence. Quite mistakenly Grotius, who is followed by Carpzov : 
Videtur mihi hoe loco «rio significare opus hominis, quia id est velut crea- 
tura hominis.—dé] on the contrary. See onii. 6.—retpayydicuéva] laid bare. 
Hesychius: regavepwpéva. tpayndifecvy means: to bend back the neck of 
‘the victim, in the act of slaying, in order to lay bare the chest, then gen- 
erally: to lay bare, disclose, expose to view. See the Lexicons of Passow 


1Comp. ¢.g. apuos Ovpas, Dionys. Hal. v. 7; 
apmot Avdwv, Ecclus. xxvii. 2, al. 

2Comp. especially, Quis rerum divinarum 
haeres. p. 499 (with Mangey, I. p. 491): Ei7’ 
emtAeyer’ AvetAev avta péoa [Gen. xy. 10] 7d tis 


VOS TOV TOMEa TOY TULTAVYTwWY avTOD Adyor Siat- 
pet THY Te Anophoy Kal amoLov TOY OAwY ovalar, 
kai Ta e€ avTins aToKpLOevTa Téecoapa TOU KOT}LOU 
ororxeia, ete. Comp. also de Cherubim. p. 
112 f. (with Mangey, I. p. 144), where Philo 


ov mpoabels, iva Tov adidaxtov evvons Oedv TéL- 
VOVTA TAS TE TOV TWMATWY Kal TpayuaTwY EES 
amracas nprdcbar Kai nvaabar Soxovaas pices 
T@® TOMEL TOV TUMTAVTMY AVTOVASYY' 
Os, els THY O€uTaTHY akovnbeEls akpyv, Scarpav 
ovdérote Ajyet TA aicOnTa wavTa’ éreday Sé pé- 
XPl TOV aTopwv Kat Aeyouevwv apepav SicEcrOn, 
TAALV ATO TOUTWY TA AGYw HewpNTa Eis aVONTOUS 
Kal ameptypadous poipas apxeTar Scacpecy ovTOS 
© ToMevs....°EkaoTov ovv TOY TpL@v SietAe pe- 
gov, THY Mev WuxHV Els AoyLKdV Kal aAoyor, TOV 
dé Adyov Eis aAnOEs TE Kai Wevddos, Thy 5é aicOnow 
cis KaTaAnTTLKHY hayTaciay Kal akaTaAnmTTov.— 
Ibid. p 500 (I. p. 492): Ovtws 0 Oe0s axovnoape- 


findsin the dAoyivy poxdaca, Gen. Wi. 24, 
asymbol of the Logos, and then observes 
with regard to Abraham: Ov x opds, ote Kat 
"ABpaap 0 aodos, nvika npgato kara Oeov eTpety 
TaVvTAa Kal wNOoeVv amoAEiTELY TH yevYynTw, AanBa- 
ver THS HAoyivns porgacas (i.e. of the 
divine Logos) wiunpma, TUP Kat waxac- 
pav [Gen. xxii. 6] dceAety kai xatapdAcéar 7d 
Ovytov ad’ EavTod yALxomeEvos, va yuevy TH Sua- 
VOLa METAPALOS TpOS Tov BEoV avamTy. 

3 As is done even by Dorscheus, Caloy, Wit 
tich, Braun, Brochmann, and Schéttgen, al- 
though they do not explain hypostatically 
the word of God in yer. 12, 


490 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


and Pape on the word.’ Others ? would, after the precedent of Perizonius, 
ad Aeliani Var. Hist. xii. 58, derive the signification “lay bare” to tpayyAi- 
Ce, from the practice in antiquity of laying hold of transgressors by the 
neck when they were being led away to execution, and bending back the 
head, that they might be exposed to the gaze of all. Appeal is made not 
amiss to Suetonius in favor of this custom, Vitell. 17 : donec (Vitellius) 
religatis post terga manibus, injecto cervicibus laqueo, veste discissa, semi- 
nudus in forum tractus est... reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, 
atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ad visendam praeberet faciem 
neve submitteret. In like manner to Pliny, Panegyr. 34, 3: Nihil tamen 
gratius, nihil seculo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum 
supina ora retortasque cervices. Yet a Roman custom cannot in itself 
afford a standard for determining the signification of a Greek word. Yet 
others, as Cameron, Brochmann, and Klee, suppose the general significa- 
tion: “to lay bare,” for tpayyAifev, to arise from the circumstance that 
the verb is used also of the wrestler, who grasps his opponent by the throat, 
and hurls him down backwards, whereby the face of the latter is exposed 
to the full view of the spectators.* But the exposing of the face of the 
thrown opponent was a circumstance of no importance in the rpayyAifeew 
of the athlete, because not at all necessarily connected therewith. Fur- 
ther, and not less improbable derivations, see in Bleek.—zpé¢ év x.7.A.] 
[LIII d.] is to be taken in close combination only with the airod imme- 
diately preceding, not likewise, as is done by Michaelis, Bloomfield, and 
Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 2 Aufl. p. 104), with the first airov, and upon 7uiv 
falls no emphasis (against Ebrard and Alford). The words for the rest 
have too little the character of independence to justify our taking them 
alone, with Alford, and separating them by a colon from that which pre- 
cedes.—rpic dv 7Av 6 Adyoc] towards whom exists for us the relation, i. e. with 
whom we haveto do. Calvin: vertendum erat: cum quo nobis est ratio: 
cujus orationis hic est sensus, Deum esse, qui nobiscum agit, vel cam quo 
nobis est negotium, ideoque non esse ludendum quasi cum homine mor- 
tali, sed quoties verbum ejus nobis proponitur, contremiscendum esse, 
quia nihil ipsum lateat. Comp. 1 Kings ii. 14 and 2 Kings ix. 5: Adyo¢ por 
xpoc o&.4—Incorrectly do Luther, Vatablus, Cameron, Schlichting, Corne- 
lius a Lapide [Piscator hesitates between this and the rendering above 
given], Grotius, Calov, Wolf, Schulz, Stengel, al., generally with an appeal 
to mpdéc, i. 7, 8, and a comparison of v. 11, take rpdc bv yuiv 6 Adyog as equiv- 


1Comp. Hom. J. i. 459: ab épvoav, sc. tov 
Tp&xXnAov Tov Lepov ; Orpheus, Argon. 311: tad- 
pov aacov, avaxAtvas Kedadny eis aibépa Stay ; 
P. Fr. Ach. Nitsch, Beschreibung des héiuslichen, 
gottesdienstlichen u. s. w. Zustandes der Griechen, 
2 Aufl. Th. I. p. 667. : 

2As Elsner, Wolf; Baumgarten, Kuinoel, 
Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, and Maier. 

®Cameron: Videtur esse metaphora petita 
are palaestrica. Nam luctatores tum demum 
adversarium dicuntur tpaxnAcgerv, cum ob- 


stricto collo ita versant, ut objiciant spectato- 
rum oculis nudum conspiciendum et retec- 
tum undiquaque, id quod tum demum max- 
ime fit, quum ejus cervicibus inequitant. 

+ Aristides, Leuctr. iv. p. 465: é€mot S€ Kat 
TOUTO Oavpacrov haiveTat, El TLS TO Mev @nBaiovs 
fLovous avTimadous nuty KataderhbOjvar Sede, To 
SE mpds audorepous uty elvar Tov Adyov, ovdevds 
afvov xpiver poBov. Further examples in 
Wetstein and Bleek. 


CHAP. Iv. 14. 491 


alent to rept ov nyiv 6 Aéyoc. Moreover, something entirely foreign is im- 
ported by Ewald when, with a reference to ii. 10 f., he finds in the words 
the sense: “to whom, as a friend and brother, we can always most confi- 
dently speak.” Finally, the Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, Primasius, Erasmus Paraphr., Clarius, Zeger, Owen, Limborch, 
Michaelis, Whitby, Cramer, Stuart, Hofmann, a., explain: to whom we 
shall have to give an account of our actions. In itself this interpretation 
would be admissible; but, inasmuch as the words must in consequence 
thereof be taken in reference to an event yet future, we should necessarily 
expect the addition of éora. 

Ver. 14-x. 18. [On Vv. 14-16, see Note LIV., pages 498, 499.] The 
author has, in that which precedes, compared Christ with the angels and 
then with Moses, and proved the superiority of Christ over both. He 
applies himself now to a third point of the comparison, in that he insti- 
tutes a comparison between Christ and the Levitical high priests, and 
developes on’ every side the exalted character of His high-priesthood 
above the Levitical high-priesthood, with regard to His person, with regard 
to the sanctuary in which He fulfills His office, and with regard to the 
sacrifice presented. The copiousness of this new dogmatic investigation 
—w hich is subservient to the same paraenetic aim as the preceding expo- 
sitions, and therefore opens with an exhortation of the same nature with 
the former ones, and is presently interrupted by a somewhat lengthy 
warning-paraenetic interlude—is to be explained by the greater import- 
ance it had for the readers, who, in narrow-minded over-estimate of the 
temple cultus inherited from the fathers, regarded the continued participa- 
tion in this cultus as necessary for the complete expiation of sin and the 
acquiring of everlasting salvation, and, because they thought nothing 
similar was to be found in Christianity, were exposed to an imminent peril 

of turning away from the latter and relapsing entirely into Judaism.’— 
"The transition to this new section is formed by vv. 14-16. 

Ver. 14. The introductory phrase : éxovrec oby apyxtepéa, presupposes that 
the author has already had occasion to speak of Jesus as ap xeepe bc. We 
are therefore led back for obv to ii. 17, iii. 1. But, since there is further 
added to dapyvepéa the qualification péyav and dveAnAvddra Tove ovpa- 
voc, and thus also these characteristics must be presupposed as known 
from that which precedes, we have consequently not to limit oiv, in its 
backward reference, to ii. 17, iii. 1, but to extend it to the whole disquisi- 
tion, i. 1-iii. 6, in such wise that (logically, indeed, in a not very exact 
manner) péyav, dueAyAvddra Tovs ovpavooc glances back in general to the dig- 
nity and exaltedness of the person of Jesus, as described in these sections. 
—Frroneously does Delitzsch suppose that by means of ov the exhorta- 
tion Kpatauev TH¢ duodoyiac is derived as a deduction from vv. 12, 13. Such 


1 Compare the explanation already given by pukat, add’ VnAoTEpa Kal TeAcLOTEpa TAVTA, Kat 
Chrysostom, Hom. viii. init. : "Emevdy yap ovdev ovdey TOV TwmaTLKaY, To SE TAY EV Tols Mveupa- 
hv (sc. in the New Covenant) cwpatikov 7 pav- TiKois WV, OVX oUTw dé TA mvevpaTika TOUS agGe- 
TATTLKOY, OLOV OV VAS, OVX Gyva aylwv, ovX Lepevs veaTepous EmHYETO Ws TA gwhaTiKd, TOUTOU Xapr 
TrogavTHV EXOV KaTacKEUyY, OV TapaTynpHaeErs vO- tovrov OAov KLvEr TOV ADYOV. 


492 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


opinion would be warranted only if, with the omission of the participial 
clause, merely xpatdpuev obv rij¢ 6uodoyiac had been written. For since kparé- 
ev THC duozoyiac has received its own justification in the prefixed éyovrec 
x.7.4., apart from that which immediately precedes, itis clear that, in con- 
nection with ver. 14, there is no further respect had to the contents of yv. 
12,13. Itis not therefore to be approved that Delitzsch, in order tomake 
room for the unfortunate reference tovy. 12, 15, will have ody logically 
attached to the verb xpatduev, instead of the participle, with which it is 
grammatically connected, and to which, as the most simple and natural, 
the like passage, x. 19 ff., also points. What labored confusion of the re- 
lations would Delitzsch require the reader to assume, when he is called to 
regard éyovrec «.7.2. as being at the same time a recapitulation of that 
which has been said before, and continuation of the argument; and yet, 
spite of all this, to look upon kpatéuev tie éuodoyiac as a deduction from vy. 
12,13! In any case, the connection asserted by Delitzsch to exist between 
ver. 14 and vv. 12, 13: “the word of God demands obedience and appro- 
priation, z.e. faith, not, however, as merely a faith locked up within the 
vreast, but also a loud Yea and Amen, unreserved and fearless confession, 
auodoyia from mouth and heart, as the echo thereof,” is in itself a baseless 
imagination ; because the before-demanded zicoti¢ and the here de- 
manded déuodoyia are by no means distinguished from each other as a minus 
and a majus, but, on the contrary, in the mind of the author of the epis- 
tle are synonyms. It results that oiv stands in a somewhat free relation 
to the foregoing argument, consequently must not at all be taken as, 
strictly speaking, an illative particle, with which that which precedes is 
first brought to a close, but as a particle of resuming, which, in the form of 
a return to that which has already been said before, begins a new section. 
—péyav] does notan such wise appertain to apyepéa that only in combi- 
nation with the same it should form the idea of the high priest (Jac. Cap- 
pellus, Brain, Rambach, Wolf, Carpzoy, Michaelis, Stuart), but is indica- 
tive of the quality of the high priest, and means evalted, just as péyac, x. 
21, in combination with iepéic. Comp. also xiii. 20.—As the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews represents Christ the Son. of God, so also does 
Philo’ represent the divine Logos as 6 péyac¢ apyiepetc.2—dveAnAvtbra rove 
ovpavoi¢] elucidatory demonstration of uéyav. Wrongly is it translated by 
Luther (as also by the Peshito): who has ascended up to heaven ; by Calvin, 
Peirce, Ernesti, al. : qui coelos ingressus est. It can only signify [Piscator, 
Owen, Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, al.]: who has passed through the heavens, se. 
in order, exalted above the heavens (cf. vii. 26; Eph. iv. 10), to take His 
seat upon the throne of the Divine Majesty (i. 3,18). Allusion to the 
high priest.of the Old Covenant, who, in order to make atonement for 
the people, passed through the courts of the Temple, and through the 
Temple itself, into the Most Holy Place. Comp. ix- 11.—tyooiv rap vidy 


1 De Somn. p. 598 A, with Mangey, I. p. 654. apXLEpEvs 0 TPwWTSyOVOS avTOD Helos Adyos, ETEpoV 
2Comp. ibid. p. 597 (I. p. 653): Avo yap, ws dé Aoyixy Wuxy, Hs Lepeds O mpds aAyPeray av- 
eokev, tepa Oeov, Ev pev Gd€ O KOTMOS, EV w KaL Opw7ros. , 


CHAP, Iv. 15. 493 


tov Geov] emphatic apposition to apyepéa péyar k.7.2., in which the charac- 
terization of Jesus as the vide rot Geot (i. 1, 5, vi. 6, vii. 3, x. 29) serves anew 
‘to call attention to the dignity of the New Testament High Priest. Quite 
mistaken are Wolf and Béhme in their conjecture that the object in the 
addition of rév vidr tov beov is the distinction of Jesus from the Joshua 
mentioned ver. 8. For the mention of Joshua, ver. 8, was, as regards the 
connection, only an incidental one, on which account there also not even 
a more precise definition was given to the name.—«partapev rie duoroyiac] 
let us hold fast (vi. 18; Col. ii. 19; 2 Thess, ii. 15; wrongly Tittmann: lay 
hold of, embrace) the confession. éuoAoyia is not, with Storr, to be referred 
specially to the confession of Christ as the High Priest, but to be taken in 
general of the Christian confession. The expression is here too used 
objectively, as il. 1, of the sum or subject-matter of the Christian’s belief. 

Ver. 15. Further justification of the demand, ver. 14, of stedfast adher- 
ence to the Christian confession.! For the High Priest of Christians is 
not merely a highly exalted One (ver. 14), He is also qualified, since as 
Brother He stands very closely related to believers, and has been tempted 
as they are, to have sympathy for their weaknesses. Comp. ii. 17, 18.7 
Whereas dvvdyevov ovurabjoa and rerepacuévov Kata ravta Ka? dGuordtyta 
bring out the homogeneity of the New Testament High Priest with that 
of the Old Testament (comp. v. 2), the dissimilarity at the same time ex- 
isting between the two is rendered apparent by yopic duaptiac.—ovurabeiv] 
to have sympathy, compassionate feeling —Comp. x. 34. Preliminary con- 
dition to bestowing succor and redemption.—ai dofévecac judv] the condi- 
tions of human weakness, as well moral as physical, which have been 
called forth by the entrance of sin into the world.—zere:pacpévov dé] con- 
tains in the form of a correction of 4) dvvdéuevor the proof of the capacity 
for having sympathy.—xara ravta] Comp. 1. 17.—«xal? éuoidryta] se. judv, 
(comp. vil. 15: xara tiv duoibryTa MeAyioedéx), or juiv,s or even xpoc 
juac * in like (similar) manner as we.—yupic duapriac| without sin, i. e. with- 
out sin arising out of the temptations, or more clearly: without His 
being led into sinning, as a result of His being tempted. Comp. vii. 
26; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John i1.5; 1 Pet. ii. 22. When Hofmann (Schriftbew. 
II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 37) and Delitzsch will discover in these words the additional 


1[neorrectly does Ebrard take ver. 15 as 
elucidation of €xovres apxeepea. 

2Calvin: In nomine Filii Dei, quod posuit, 
subest ea majestas, quae nos ad timorem et 
obsequium adigat. Verum si nihil in Christo 
aliud consideremus, nondum pacatae erunt 
conscientiae. Quis enim non reformidet 
Filii Dei conspectum, praesertim quum re- 
putamus, qualis sit nostra conditio, nobisque 
in mentem ventunt peceata nostra? Deinde 
Judaeis aliud obstare poterat, quia Levitico 
sacerdotio assueyerant: illie ceernebant hom- 
inem mortalem unum ex aliis electum, qui 
sanctuarium ingrediebatur, ut sua depreca- 
tione reconciliaret fratres suos Deo. Hoe 


magnum est, quum mediator, qui placare 
erga nos Deum potest, unus est ex nobis. 
Haec illecebra poterat Judaeos illaqueare, ut 
sacerdotio Levitico semper essent addicti, 
nisi occurreret apostolus, ac ostenderet 
Filium Dei non modo excellere gloria, sed 
aequa bonitate et indulgentia erga nos esse 
praeditum. 

3 Comp. Polyb. xiii. 7. 2: "Hv yap etéwAov yu- 
VALKELOV, TOAUTEAECLY LMaTiots NULETMEVOV, KATA 
Se thy pophHy cis OoLdTHnTAa TH TOV NaBudos yu- 
vatki dtaddpws atecpyacpevov. 

4Comp. Philo, de Profugis, p. 458 A, with 
Mangey, I. p. 553: cata thy mpds TaAAa ofoLe 
TTA. 


494 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


indication that in the case of Jesus temptation aiso found no sin present, this is 
indeed true as to the fact, but open to the misconception of being sup- 
posed to imply that even the possibility of sinning on the part of Jesus is 
denied, whereas surely this possibility in itself must be conceived of as an 
essential factor in the idea of being tempted ; and opposed to the context, 
because ywpi¢ duaptiac is the continued note of modality of tereipacuéver, 
and thus cannot possibly specify something that was already present, even 
before the respafeofac came in. More in accordance with the context, 
therefore, does Alford express himself: “Throughout these temptations, 
in their origin, in their process, in their result,—sin had nothing in Him : 
He was free and separate from it.” Wrongly Jac. Cappellus, Calmet, 
Semler, Storr, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others: tempted in all 
things, sin excepted. For in that case ywpic¢ t7¢ aduapriac (with the article) 
would be written, and this be connected immediately with kara xavra. 
Mistaken, however, is also the explanation of Oecumenius, Schlichting, 
Dindorf: without having committed sin, as a guiltless one; an interpretation 
which would be admissible only if wecpafeo@ac could be referred specially 
to the enduring of outward sufferings, which might be seen to be a conse- 
quence of sin.--Comp., for the rest, on ywpi¢ duapriac likewise the kindred 
statements concerning the divine Logos in Philo.! 

Ver. 16. Encouragement, derived from the character of the High Priest 
of the New Testament, as brought into relief, ver. 15.—zpocépyeofar] 
approach, draw near, in order to have community with something. Comp. 
vii. 25, x. 1, 22, xi. 6, xii. 18, 22. Too specially Delitzsch, Kurtz, and 
Ewald, who explain: drawing near in prayer for aid or succour.—pera 
rappnoiac] with confidence (iii. 6), inasmuch as we possess, in the very office 
of intercessor, a High Priest who is not only exalted, but also full of 
sympathy, who thus has notonly the power, but also the will to help.— 
Opdvoc tHe yapitoc] not: Christ Himself (Gerhard, 8. Schmidt, Carpzov, 
Ernesti, al.), not: the throne of Christ (Primasius [also Tena, arguing from 
the Vulgate of ii. 9], Schlichting, Limborch, Ch. Fr. Schmid, al.), but the 
throne of God, at whose right hand Christ is seated. Comp. viii. 1, xii. 2 
[Eph. ii. 18]. It is called, however, the throne of grace, because the 
nature of the New Covenant has, as its presupposition, not strictly judicial 
retribution, according to the works of men, but compassion and grace on 
the part of God; the believer feels himself united to God as a loving 
Father, who has remitted to him the guilt and punishment of sin. A 
reference for the rest to the cover of the ark of the covenant, regarded as 
the seat of the Godhead in the sanctuary (the 152 or iacrfpwv of the 
Old Covenant), assumed by Piscator, Schéttgen, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, 
Abresch, Kuinoel, Paulus, al., and still in recent times by Bloomfield and 
Bisping (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in connection with the expression: 6 
Opévoc tie xépiroc, is not indicated by anything in the text.—To obtain 


1De Profugis, p. 466 B (with Mangey, I. p. vov adda kai axovoiwy adixnuaTwy auéToxXov.— 
562): Adyouev yap, Tov apxtepéa ovK avOpwrov _— Ibid. p. 467 C (I. p. 563): apéroxos yap eat ama- 
GAAG Adyov Oetov elvat, TaVTWY OVX EKOVTLWY [L0- padextos mavTos elvar MEPUKEV AuapTHUc TOS. 


NOTES. 495 


mercy and find grace (Luke i. 30; Acts vii. 46; comp. jM 839, Gen. vi. 8, 
xviii. 3, and frequently) are synonymous terms. All distinctions, as that of 
Béhme: éAcoc magis id appellat, quo indigebant calamitatibus oppress 
lectores, yapic, QUO peccatis non carentes; of Stein, that éeo¢ relates to 
compassion towards the sinner, yapic to every manifestation of grace; of 
Bisping, that éeo¢ refers more to the forgiveness of sins and deliverance 
from sufferings, while xépu refers to the communication of higher gifts 
of grace; of Hofmann, that ydpu ebpickew means “ to be brought into a 
state of favor with any one, to become an object of his good-will ;” 
AauBdvew éeoc, on the other hand, is “a receiving of that which the kind 
and gracious One accords to those in need of His kindness, just on account 
of their need,” and many others, are untenable.—ei¢ ebxaipov BofGecav] for 
timely help, i.e. in order that we may in this manner attain to a help which 
appears on the scene, while it is still the right time, before it is yet too 
late (iii. 18). Wrongly Tholuck, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, and Hofmann: 
“before the one in conflict with the temptations succumbs ; ” and others 
(also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 740): “as often as we stand in 


need of the Bo7fea.” 


Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LI. Vv. 1-3. 


(a) Vv. 1-10 constitute the third part of this extended hortatory passage (see 
Note XLIX a above), in which the readers are reminded of the danger that they 
might fail of entering into the rest of God from the same cause which had led to 
the failure of the ancient Israelites—namely, atoria, Odv of ver. 1 refers to what 
is said of the Israelites in vv. 15-19; ¢0878ayev calls to mind the reason for 
apprehension, and, at the same time, urges the course of action which such appre- 
hension would naturally suggest; doxm and vorepyKévac are to be explained, with 
Liinem., the former as an intentional softening of the expression, and the latter as 
in the perfect because, at the time of decision as to who shall find entrance, these 
will prove to have already failed. The genitive-absolute clause, intermediate 
between ¢037SGuev and doxi tor. (KaTarerrropévne éxayyeAiac. .. avTov) stands in a 
circumstantial relation to the sentence. This is indicated by the position of the 
words after #7ore, which shows that they do not give a reason for the exhortation 
to be apprehensive of the danger and thus avoid it, but set forth a circumstance 
connected with the statement of the thing to be apprehended. They were to fear 
lest, their condition being the same with that of the Israelites, in respect to the 
fact of the promise, the result at the end might be the same. The emphasis on 
katakerrouévyg and the use of the word are connected rather with the thought de- 
veloped later in the chapter (see vv. 3 ff.), than with the demands of the thought 
in this verse. The omission of the article with éxayyediac is due, no doubt, to the 
fact that it was the idea of promise, rather than of the particular promise, which was 
here prominent in the writer’s mind. That the great promise of God is one and 
the same is made sufficiently clear in subsequent verses.—(b) Ver. 2, as Liinem. 
remarks, “corroborates in its first half the katadevrouévyc (ver. 1), while the 
second half shows the danger of the iotepyxévae in the example of others.” This 
verse belongs, thus, immediately with ver. 1, and serves to complete its idea. It 


496 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


is to be observed, however, that the substance of this verse is really gathered 
up into the ov of ver. 1 with the following kata/ev7., and consequently that 
it has a repetitious character, such as we often see, in similar cases, in Paul’s 
writings. 

(c) As to the text and construction of ver. 2 b, the following suggestions may be 
offered :—1. The nominative of the participle (ovyxex.) is read by Tisch. 8, as 
Liinem. states in his critical notes, but Lachm., Treg., W. & H., Alf, R. V., read 
the accusative. The external evidence, as may be seen by the presentation of it 
given by Liinem., strongly favors the accusative, which is also favored by the con- 
sideration that it is the more difficult reading. The change from o¢ to ove, how- 
ever, is only a slight one, and might, easily, as it would seem, have been made by 
a copyist, who, without carefully examining the bearing of it on the thought of 
the sentence, was influenced, by the preceding éxe‘voue, to put the participle in the 
same case.—2. The reading with the accusative—because they were not mixed in 
faith, or united by faith, with those who heard—presents a thought which is not 
in the special line of the surrounding context. This is evident for the following 
reasons : first, because the context does not call attention to those who received the 
word by faith, in the early times, but finds all its emphasis in centering the 
thought upon those who did not thus receive it; secondly, because the context 
uses hearing in the more objective or passive sense, i. e. that hearing which is 
involved in the proclamation, and not receptive hearing; thirdly, the context, 
in ver. 2 a and also in ver. 6, distinctly sets forth the persons, to whom the good 
tidings were preached, as the same with the disobedient ones—the same with those 
who had been mentioned in iii., 16 ff.; fourthly, the argument of the context 
which follows is to show, that the rest remains for the readers to enter into it, 
because it had not been entered already ;—but, to make an allusion to Caleb 
and Joshua, who, in a certain sense, had entered it, would not only be wholly 
unnecessary, but would diminish the rhetorical force of the passage. On the 
other hand, the reading with the nominative places the sentence in the direct line 
of all that is said from iii. 15 to iv. 10. Like Rom. v. i., therefore, this verse 
must be reckoned among the small number of passages, where it seems probable 
that the internal evidence is to be regarded as out-weighing the external. The 
internal evidence, in this case, is supported by 8 and by Vulg., and some other 
authorities which read the nominative. A. R. V., reads the nominative in the 
text and the accusative in the margin; R. V., the acc. in the text, and the nom. 
in the margin. 

(d) In ver. 3 a, there is a twofold emphasis—on eicepyéueba, by reason of its 
position and as related to vv. 4-10; andon ot mioreioarrec, as related to the idea 
of faith which, through 7% xiorec and azotia, is made so prominent in the pre- 
ceding context. There is a turn in the thought, in this verse, from the danger of 
failure through unbelief, and the vital necessity of faith, to the certainty of the 
reward in case we have faith. In order to the setting forth of this certainty, 
which is expressed in the emphatic cicepyoueha, the writer proceeds in vy. 4-10 
to establish the fact that the rest really awaits the entrance of the true believers.— 
(e) In the latter part of ver. 3, two points are to be noticed :—1. That xaAac eipyrer 
k.7.A., introduces the proof of the necessity of faith, which is suggested in oi mor. 
This proof lies in the fact that the Israelites were refused entrance notwithstand- 
ing that the rest had long since been prepared—it must have been their disobedi- 
ence, therefore, occasioned by their atioria, which caused their rejection. 2. That 


NOTES. 497 


the clause following xaito, though connected by that word, as just indicated, with 
the xa$éc clause, gives in its own suggested thought the foundation for the next 
verses, 4-10. 


LI. Vv. 4-10. 


(a) In the development of the proof given in these verses (with which, as 
already stated, the last clause of ver. 3 is, in thought, to be connected), there are, 
apparently, four steps: 1. The rest of God was established by Him at the end of 
the work of the creation of the world, 2. This rest was not entered by the 
Israelites of Moses’ time; it remained, therefore, open for others. 3. It was not 
entered, in the full sense, in the time of Joshua; it was reserved for men who should 
follow afterwards. 4. It was not entered, even in David’s time, as indicated by 
the very exhortation of his Psalm, which is still read in the days present to the 
writer and his readers. The arrangement of the steps is not in the order of direct 
succession, but according to the incidental suggestions of each sentence as intro- 
ducing the next. It follows, as we may say, the grammatical, rather than the 
logical law of connection and progress. But the thought may be easily traced ; 
and the conclusion is reached in ver. 9, that there is a rest yet remaining, and that 
it is a oaBBariouéc—a rest such as God Himself had “ when the works were done.” 

(b) With respect to the immediate and grammatical connection of the passage 
(4-10), the following points may be observed :—1. yép of ver. 4, grammatically, 
gives the reason for the whole sentence from &¢ &poca to yevvnbévTar, and it 
covers in its force ver. 4 and ver. 5. In the special progress of thought in vv. 
4-10, ver. 4 may he regarded as giving the proof of what is suggested as to the 
first provision of the rest in ver. 3c, and ver. 5 repeats, for the purposes of this 
passage, the statement of the failure of the Israelites in the times of Moses, which 
is still further mentioned in ver. 66. Vv. 5, 6 b, thus contain the second step of 
the proof.—2. oiv of ver. 6 connects arokeimerat K.7.2., as an inference, with what 
precedes, and é7e? +ntroduces these words as a protasis, to which épiler K.7.A. (ver. 
7) answers as an apodosis. The chief statement of these two verses is, evidently, 
that of ver. 7, and, in relation to the main thought of the passage, these verses 
declare that the exhortation in the Psalms shows the rest to be still open for 
entrance, in the time of David.—s. yap of ver. 8 introduces that verse as a proof 
or justification of the words 7a/uv dpiler nuépar. There would have been no such 
reference to a new day, if the rest to which Joshua led the people had been all 
that was meant. It is evident, however, that the placing of ver. 8 after ver. 7 and 
the connecting of the two by yap belong only to the incidental and grammatical 
progress of the verses, and not to the historical order of the proofs. 

(c) The introduction of the word oaParioudc (ver. 9), in place of KxaTéravore, 
cannot be satisfactorily explained without giving it a deeper significance. The 
progress of the steps in the argument, which shows that nothing in the past has 
exhausted the meaning of the offer of entrance into the rest, points to the same 
significance. The word arohe(rerat, also, Which carries with it the idea of remain- 
ing over, and the implication that what is referred to had not yet been fully 
realized, accord with this deeper sense. The rest which remains is a future and 
heavenly one—the one clearly revealed by Christ. 

(d) The two views respecting § clceA#Ov of ver. 10—that it refers to Christ, and 
that it designates the individual believer, whoever he may be—are, both of them, 
liable to serious objections. Without expressing a confident opinion on the sub- 

32 





498 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


ject, the writer of this note would offer the following suggestions, which may be 
regarded as favoring the reference to Christ :—(1) If we consider ver. 3, by its 
emphatic eicep xouea, as intended to turn the thought of the readers to something 
outside of the mere exhortation—namely, to the certainty that they will enter 
the rest, if they believe-——we may find a most appropriate conclusion to the 
development of this idea in the statement of ver. 9, that the rest is a oa ariopdc, 
and in the proof of this statement, which is found in the fact that it is the rest 
which Jesus entered at the end of His work.—-(2) This view of the matter 
removes, in some measure, the prolonged and repetitious character of the horta- 
tory section, iii. 7—iv. 13, by connecting these verses with the idea (which is 
suggested in ch. ii. 9,10) of Jesus as leading the sons of God to the glory awaiting 
them. At the same time, however, it does not destroy the close union of the 
verses with those which precede, and their manifest grammatical subordination 
to the exhortation of vv. 1, 2—(3) A certain rhetorical parallelism, in this 
grammatically subordinate passage, to the thought of ch. ii. is thus given—though 
not such an elaborate parallelism as is supposed by Ebrard—and this we might 
naturally expect in these chapters.—(4) The reference of ver. 10 to Jesus makes 
this verse a declaration that Jesus has entered the heavenly rest, as ch. ii. 9 
affirms His entrance into the heavenly glory—in both cases, leading the way for 
His people.—(5) By means of this declaration, the way is prepared—as it is not 
so fully otherwise—for the introduction of vv. 14-16, which correspond so closely 
with ii. 17, 18.—The objections to this view are found in the fact that Jesus is not 
mentioned by name in the yerse, and in the absence of any allusion to Him in 
connection with oi mcoretoavrec, in ver. 3, or even in the entire passage lii. 7-iv, 
9. The objections to the other view are the use of the aorist instead of the pre- 
sent, both in the participle and the verb, and the emphatic avrdéc, which is less 
easily accounted for if the reference is to any believer whatsoever. 





e IT. Vvyi11-1s. i 

(a) obv of ver. 11 deduces thé inference from iii. 7 onwards, according to 
Liinem.’s view. “More probably, we are to refer it to the preceding verses of this 
chapter (vv. 3-7) ; so Alford and others. This latter reference is unquestionable, 
if the design of these verses as following eicepyoueba, which has been alluded to, 
is to be admitted. In any case, there is undoubtedly a special pointing of odv to 
the idea expressed in oa3Baricu6c—(b) The Aoyoc Tov Geov (ver. 12) must, at least, 
be regarded as including and giving prominence to the idea of a threatening of 
punishment, if, indeed, it is not to be limited in its meaning to this—(c) The four 
genitives wvyie¢ x.7.2. (ver. 12) may, each of them, depend on sepcopov, or the last 
two may depend on yep., and each of the first two on both of the last two. The 
latter construction is, perhaps, to be preferred—(d) The explanation of tpo¢ 6» 
juiv 6 Adyoc to which Liinem. gives his assent, is the most satisfactory one. The 
danger attending neglect of the new revelation and the certainty of punishment in 
case of falling away are suggested here, as in other places, in connection with the 
one, ever-repeated exhortation. 


LIV. Vv. 14-16. 


(a) The view of Liinem. and other writers, who regard these verses as properly 
to be united with ch. v., is to be rejected. This is evident, first, because of the 


NOTES. ; 499 


very striking parallelism between these verses and those at the end of ch. ii., both 
in their words and thoughts and in the manner of their introduction ; secondly, be- 
cause ch, y. introduces the discourse respecting the subject of the high-priesthood in 
the most natural way, by presenting certain essential qualifications and then add- 
ing the statement that Christ had these qualifications, and thus most appropriately 
opens the new section; thirdly, because these last verses of ch. iv. are mainly 
hortatory, and are accordingly, in contrast to v. 1 ff., adapted to form the conclusion 
of the preceding section. The dividing point between the first and second main 
divisions of the epistle is the end of ch. iv—(5) As to the correspondences and 
differences in the words here used and those in ii. 17, 18, see Note XLVII bd. 
above. The second part of the first main division closes, like the first part, with 
a brief passage which is a foreshadowing of and preparation for the thoughts 
of the later chapters. 


500 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. Instead of the Recepta d@pa te kai Avoiac, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 
read merely d@pa kai Ovoiac. But the single testimony of B (D**?)—for 
nothing is here to be inferred from the Latin versions—does not suffice for the 
condemnation of the particle. te is protected by A C D*** (D*: re ddpa) E 
K L &, by, as it appears, all the cursives, Epiph. and many others. Cf. also Heb. 
vill. 3, ix. 9—~-Ver. 3. Elz.: dca tattyv. Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 
Delitzsch, Alford, al.: dv’ ait4#v. To be preferred on account of the better 
attestation by A B C* D* x, 7, 80, al., Syr. utr. Chrys. ms. Cyril. Theodoret 
(alic.).—Instead of the Recepta éavtov, there is placed in the text by Lachm., 
after B D*, airov; by Tisch. 1, ai70v.—But éavrov is found in A C D*** E 
K L ¥, almost all min., and many Fathers, and is on that account to be retained, 
with Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7,and 8, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. 
—The preference over the Recepta irép ayaptiév (supported by C*** D*** E 
K L, the majority of the min. Chrys. Theodoret ad loc., al. ; defended by Bleek, 
and more recently by Bloomfield and Reiche) is merited by the reading wepi 
duapti@v, already commended to attention by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. 
Tisch. and Alford, with the assent of Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Heb- 
rderbr. p. 434), partly on account of the stronger attestation by A B C* D* x, 17, 
31, 47, 75, 118, Chrys. codd. Theodoret (semel), partly because tepi might easily, 
on account of the vepi placed twice before, be altered into izép, in conformity 
with b7ép duaptiov, ver. 1—Ver. 4. aAAa Kadobuevoc]. So rightly already the 
Editt.. Complut. and Plantin.; in like manner Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, 
Knapp, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after the 
preponderating authority of A B C* D E K x, 238, 37, 44, al. plur., Chrys. 
Damase. Procop. Oecum. The article added in the Recepta: A/a 6 Kadoipe- 
voc, is not only badly attested (C** L, Constitutt. apostoll., Theodoret, Theophy- 
lact), but also unsuitable, since not a new subject in opposition to the unemphatic 
Tic is required by the context, but an antithetic nearer defining in opposition to 
the significant oy éavr@.—Instead of the Recepta xabarep (C** D*** E K L 
x*** Theodoret), anproved by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de 
Wette, Bloomfield, al., Lachm., after C* (?) Chrys. Procop. reads: kadc; Tisch., 
with Alford, after A B D* 8* Damase.: kadoorep. The last, in favor of 
which Delitzsch also declares himself, deserves the preference as the best attested, 
and as most in keeping with the predilection of the author for harmonious com- 
binations.—The article 6 before ’Aap6v in the Recepta was already with justice 
deleted in the edit. Complut., and later by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, 
Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. Against it decides the weighty author- 
ity of A BC D E K LX, many min. and Fathers.—Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei, 
Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: troig imxakotovory aitg raorv. But 
preponderating witnesses (A B C D E 8, 17, 37, al., Syr. utr. Copt. It. Vulg. 
Vigil. Cassiod. Chrys. Cyril, Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl.) require the order: 


CHAP. vy. 1-5. 501 


mao.v troi¢ trakobovory aivtg. Already recommended by Griesbach. 
Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch. 
The sequence of the words in the Recepta is a later alteration, in order to bring 
out the more noticeably the paronomasia of toe trakovovow with the foregoing 
ray brakov.—Ver. 12. Kai ov oTepedc tpodic] So Elz, Lachm. Bloomfield, Alford, 
al. ; while Tisch. 2, 7, and 8 has, after B** C, 17, 8* Copt. Vulg. Orig. (thrice) 
Cyril, Chrys. ms. Aug. Bede, only ov otepeac tpodye. But «ai is protected 
by A B*¥ D E K L &8*** the majority of the min., many versions, and several 
Fathers. 


Vy. 1-10. [On Vv. 1-10, see Note LV., pages 519-522.] Emphasizing 
of two main qualifications of the earthly high priest, in which Christ 
likewise is not wanting. [LV a.] 

Vy. 1-3. [LV 6.] The first qualification : the capacity, as man, who him- 
self is subject to human weakness, to deal leniently with erring humanity. 
To what extent and under what modification this characteristic of the 
earthly high priest is applicable also to Christ, is not discussed by the 
author in our passage. This might appear remarkable, since with respect 
to the second necessary qualification of the earthly high priest, further 
added ver. 4, the parallel relation in the case of Christ is expounded in 
detail from ver.5 onwards. But yet there was no need of an express 
application to Christ, of that which was observed vy. 1-3. What the 
author had had to say with regard to this was already clear to the readers 
from the earlier disquisitions of the epistle itself. The element of the 
homogeneity of Christ with.the Jewish high priest, namely, that He, like 
the Jewish high priest, can have sympathy with sinful man, since He had 
become in all points like unto men His brethren, had been fully traced 
out in the second chapter, and attention is called anew to it in iv. 15 by 
the duvduevov cvuraljoa taic aobeveiarc juav and remecpacuévov Kata Tava 
ka?’ duoidrnra. The element of the dissimilarity, on the other hand, 
namely, that while the Jewish high priest had to offer for his own sins, 
Christ was without sin, is first brought prominently forward in iv. 15 by 
means of opie duaptiac, and, besides this, followed already from the 
exalted position the author had, in the opening chapters of the epistle, 
assigned to Christ as the Son of God.—tThat, in reality, also the paragraph 
vy. 7-10, no less than vv. 5, 6, is subordinate to the second main consider- 
ation, expressed ver. 4, has been denied, it is true, by Beza, Schlichting, 
Hammond, Limborch, Storr, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others. They 
are of opinion that from ver. 5 onwards an application of all the state- 
ments, vv. 1-4, to Christ ensues ; that this, however, takes place in inverse 
order, so that vv. 5, 6 refer back to ver. 4, vv. 7, 8 to ver. 2, and finally, vv. 
9,10 to ver. 1. The untenable character of such opinion is self-evident. 
For—(1) vv.7, 8 cannot have the design of applying to Christ that which was 
observed ver. 2, because only the parenthetic clause of ver. 7 (denoewe .. « 
ebaaBeiac) adapts itself to any extent to the contents of ver. 2, and this 
parenthetic clause stands in logical subordination to ver. 8 as the main 
point of the argument, consequently just ver. 8 and ver. 2 must present a 


502 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


similarity of contents, which is not the case. (2) That vy. 9, 10 should be 
referred back to ver. 1 cannot be accepted as correct, because ver. 1 forms 
in itself no independent and complete statement, but stands in closest 
concatenation with ver. 2, so that only with this verse comes in what is 
for ver. 1 the all-essential point of nearer definition —From the foregoing 
it results that the harmonizing view of Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
444, 447) is unwarranted. According to this view, vv. 7, 8 are indeed, 
“in the first place,” or “ formally,” a link in the demonstration that Christ 
did not become high priest by an act of arbitrary self-glorification, but as 
regards the “ contents” or “ tenor” form, “at the same time also an indi- 
cation corresponding to vv. 1-3, and pointing out that Christ upon His 
path of suffering has passed through experiences which were adapted not 
only to make Him acquainted with the human doéveva, but also to prove 
in Him the capacity for the perpiordbea.”—With Tholuck, for the rest, to 
take vy. 1-8 still in relation to the preceding chapter, as an antithesis to 
ver. 15, and to begin a new section with ver. 4, is not permissible. Fora 
comparison of the main contents of vv. 1-3 with the main contents of iy. 
15, points to the fact that the author designs to bring out a relation of 
resemblance and affinity. We cannot possibly, therefore, attach, with 
Tholuck, to the particle yap, v.1, the sense: “the distinction namely 
arises, that.” The consideration, moreover, presents itself, that ver. 4 can 
only appear in relation to vv. 1-8, alike as regards tenor of contents as 
with regard to its lax grammatical nexus, as a further co-ordinate link in 
an enumeration, before begun, of the qualifications essential to the char- 
acter of every earthly high priest, consequently is not appropriate to the — 
introduction of a section entirely separated from that which precedes. 
Vey e Jystification of the déivacbar ovurabyaa taic aobeveiae judyv, iv. 
15, as a necessary qualification in the case of Christ, since it is an indis- 
pensable requirement even in every earthly high priest. ydp does not 
glance back to iv. 16, as is maintained by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 
'395) and Delitzsch. For v. 1-3 can in point of contents be taken neither 
as enforcement nor as elucidation of the admonition, iv. 16. The suppo- 
- sition of Hofmann and Delitzsch, however, that ydép logically controls the 
whole section, v. 1-10, is arbitrary, inasmuch as ver. 4 ff. is logically and 
erammatically bounded off from vy. 1-3, and the assertion that the aim 
in the section, v. 1-10, is to enforce the exhortation, iv. 16, by a reminder ~ 
“of the nature of the high-priesthood of Jesus, how on the one hand it 
bears resemblance to that of Aaron, and on the other hand to the priest- 
hood of Melchisedec”’ (Hofmann), or of the “blending of Aaronitic 
humanity (tenderness) with the Melchisedecian dignity in the person of 
Jesus ” (Delitzsch), is entirely erroneous; because, vv. 5-10, Aaron and 
Melchisedee are not yet at all distinguished from each other as the lower 
and the higher; but, on the contrary, this relation—in which the one 
stands to the other—is for the present left wholly in abeyance, and all 
that is insisted on is the fact that Christ, even as Aaron, was called by God 
to the high-priesthood, and that a high-priesthood after the manner of 
Melchisedec.—zac] refers, as is evident from é avOpérwv AauBavéuevoc, and 


CHAP. V. 2 503 


from ver. 3, to the earthly, i. e. the Levitical, high priest. Wrongiy, because 
going beyond the necessity of the case and the horizon of the epistle, 
Grotius (comp. also Peirce): Non tantum legem hic respicit, sed et morem 
ante legem, quum aut primo geniti familiarum aut a populis electi reges 
inirent sacerdotium. But neither is é& avOpdaruv AauBavduevoc a part of the 
subject (“every high priest taken from among men, in opposition to the 
heavenly One;” Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Akersloot, Peirce, Wet- 
stein, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Abresch. Kuinoel, Paulus, Stengel, comp. 
also Tholuck),—for then the order wa¢ yap && avépoérwv AauBavduevoc 
apytepeve Would have been chosen,—nor is it intended “ to lay stress upon 
the phenomenon, in itself remarkable, that the high priest has to repre- 
sent men, who are thus his equals, in their relation to God” (Hofmann, 
(Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.)—for thereby a reference altogether 
foreign to the connection is introduced, and the thought thus presupposed 
is itself a singular one, because, so far from its being remarkable, it is, on 
the contrary, natural and appropriate that like should be represented by 
its hike; it would be remarkable and unnatural if, for instance, a man 
should represent angels,—but it contains a note of cause to imép avépo- 
mov kadiorata. The twice occurring avdpo7wv stands full of emphasis, 
and presents a correspondence between the two. By the é& avépérwv 
AauBavéuevoc the irép avporwv xadioratac is explained and justified. 
For the very reason that the high priest is taken from among men, is he 
also appointed or installed in his office as:mediator with God.—xaV¥iorara:] 
not middle, so that ra mpo¢ tov bedv Were accusative of object thereto (Calvin: 
Curat pontifex vel ordinat, quae ad Deum pertinent; Kypke), but passive, 
so that ta mpédc Tov Gedv, as 11. 17, is to be taken as an accusative absolute. 
—iva «.7.A.] epexegetic amplification of irép avépérwv kabiorarae Ta mpd¢ 
Tov Gedv.—dpa [J21P, ,,.] and @vciae are properly distinguished as 
gifts and sacrifices of every kind, and bloody sacrifices. The distinction, 
‘however, is not always observed. Comp. e.g. LX X. Lev. ii. 1 ff., Num. vy. 
15 ff, Gen. iv. 3,5, where @vcia is used of unbloody sacrifices; and Gen. 
iv. 4, Lev. i. 2, 3, 10, al., where dépa is used of bloody sacrifices. In our 
passage the author has, without doubt, specially the bloody sacrifices in 
mind ; as, accordingly, in the course of the epistle he opposes the sacrifice 
presented by Christ to the Levitical victims in particular—irép duaptidv] 
i.e. for the expiation thereof. It belongs not merely to @vciac (Grotius, Lim- 
borch, Bengel, Dindorf) or to dép4 te kai @voiac (Owen, Alford), but to the 
whole clause of the design. 

Ver. 2 is to be coupled with ver. 1 without the placing of a comma, in 
such wise that the participial clause: yerpsorateiv duvdjevoc, connects itself 
immediatety with the preceding clause of the design. The purpose of the 
author is not to mention the bare fact that the high priest presents gifts 
and sacrifices for the expiation of sins, but to dwell on the fact that he 
presents them as one who is capable of petpiorrabeiv, petptorrabeiv Svvaevog 


1When for the rest Hofmann (Schriftbew. Tata... iva mpoodépy could be chosen, and 
II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.) supposes that for the ex- not KxaOioratar ... cis TO mpoodeperv, Since 
pression of this relation of thought only xe@ic- _ the latter would “ only be a declaration of the 


504 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


is therefore neither to be resolved into wa divyrac wetrp. (Heinrichs), nor is 
it connected, by reason of a negligent participial construction, like Aau- 
Pavéuevog with apyepebe (Stengel), nor is it added merely “appendicis 
loco” (Bbhme).—yerpiorabeiv] stands not in opposition to cvurabjoa, iv. 
15, for the indication of a difference between the human high priest and 
the divine one (Tholuck); it is not, however, identical in meaning with 
cuurabeiy (Oecumenius, Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Baumgarten, Semler, Storr, 
Abresch, a/.), but expresses a kindred notion. It is by virtue of its com- 
position equivalent to wertpiwe or Kata TO pétpov raoye, and is accord- 
ingly used of the moderating of one’s passions and feelings, as opposed to 
an unbridled surrender thereto, but also as opposed to that absolute ard6eia 
which the Stoics demanded of the sage.!_ Here the moderation or tender- 
ness in the judgment formed upon the errors of one’s neighbor is intended, 
as this is wont to arise from a sympathy with the unhappiness of the 
same which is produced by sin. Thus: to be tenderly disposed or equitable. 
—roic ayvootow Kai TtAavopévorc] Dativus commodi: in consideration of the 
ignorant and erring. Lenient designation of sinners. Perhaps, however, 
designedly chosen (comp. also ix. 7: irép éavtov kai tHv Tov Aaod dy vonpma- 
twv) in order to bring into relief only one species of sins, the sins of pre- 
cipitancy and without premeditation, inasmuch as according to the 
Mosaic law the sacrificial expiation extended only to those who had 
sinned dxovciwg ; those, on the other hand, who had sinned deliberately 
and with forethought were to be cut off from the congregation of Jehovah, 
Num. xv. 22-81; Lev. iv. 18 ffh—émet kai aiticg repixertar acbéverav| Con- 
firmation of the duvauevoc: since he indeed himself is encircled (as with a 
garment) by weakness (altogether beset with it). dao@éveva is to be under- 
stood, as vil. 28, of the ethical weakness, thus also actual sin, compre- 
hended under thig‘expression ; comp. ver. 3.—The construction wepixerwat 
tt, Which in the N. T. occurs likewise Acts xxvii. 20, is genuine Greek.? 
Ver. 38. Logical consequence from the second half of ver. 2. The words 
form a merely incidental observation. They would be on that account 
better regarded as an independent statement than, with de Wette, 
Delitzsch, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 397), and Woerner, 
thought of as still dependent on érei, ver. 2.—d? abrfy] sc. acbéverav, Quite 
untrue is the assertion that the feminine is used Hebraistically instead of 
the neuter, which even Bengel and others, with a mistaken appeal to 
Matt. xxi. 42 (see Meyer ad loc.), still hold to be possible.—égeide:] Refer- 
ence not, as is supposed by BGhme and Hofmann, /.c., to the precept in 
the law of Moses (Lev. iv. 3, ix. 7, xvi. 6, al.), but, as ii. 17, to the inner 


vocation” of the high priest, while the former must naturally be changed into the accusa- 


“can take to itself the participial clause pe- 
Tpioradery Suvapmevos, and thereby signify to 
what end it serves in the exercise of his office, 
that he has been in this way appointed there- 
to,” this is grammatically altogether baseless. 
Either turn of discourse was equally open to 
the choice of the author. Only,in case the 
atter was chosen, the nom*ative Suvapevos 


tive duvapmevov. 

1Comp. Diogen. Laert. v. 31: én S€ (sc. 
Aristotle), tov coddy my elvar péev amady, pe- 
tpvoraéy Se. Further instances in Wetstein 
and Bleek. 

2Comp. Theocrit. Idyll. xxiii. 14: UBpw tas 
dpyas mepixecuevos; Kiihner, Gramm. IL. p. 
231; Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229]. 


CHAP. Va 6-0: 505 


necessity arising from the nature of the case. Non-natural the view of 
Delitzsch and Moll, that both alike are intended.—zpoodépe'y] stands, as 
Luke vy. 14, Num. vii. 18, absolutely. With Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. 
p. 484), to look upon wepi duaprcov as definition of object to mpoodéperv 
is inadmissible, inasmuch as only the singular form wepi duapriag is 
employed to indicate the notion of “ sin-offering”’ with the LXX., as also 
in our epistle. Comp. Reiche, Commentarius Criticus ad loc. p. 35. 

Ver. 4. [LV ¢.] The second necessary qualification: to be no usurper of 
the office, but one called of God to the same.—xai] Progress, not from ver. 
3, nor yet from ver. 1, in such wise that Aaufdve, ver. 4, should form a 
paronomasia with AauBavéuevoc, ver. 1 (BOhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford, 
Maier), but from vv. 1-3.—And inot to himself does any one take the honor 
(here under consideration), ¢.e. not any one appropriates or arrogates to 
himself the high-priestly dignity on his own authority.'.—a”Aa xadobuevog 
brd Tov Oeov] sc. AauBaver aizyv, he receives it. The AauBdver here to be 
supplied has consequently—what is wrongly denied by Delitzsch, Hof- 
mann, and Woerner—another notion than the Zau3dver before placed. 
This diversity of notion, nevertheless, comes out more strongly in Ger- 
man, where two different verbs must be chosen to indicate it, than in 
Greek, where one and the same verb combines both significations in itself. 
—xaloorep Kai ’Aapov] se. KAnfeic bxd Tov Oeov avtyy eidAndev. These words 
still belong to that which precedes. They are unnaturally referred by 
Paulus to the sequel, as its protasis—Aaron and his descendants were, 
according to Ex. xxviii. 1, xxix. 4 ff., Lev. viii. 1 ff., Num. iii. 10, xvi.—xviii., 
called by God Himself to the high-priesthood.2 Not until the time of 
Herod and the Roman governors were high priests arbitrarily appointed 
and deposed, without respect to their descent from Aaron.? That, how- 
ever, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Abresch, and others con- 
jecture, the author intended by the words of ver. 4 at the same time to indicate 
that the high priests of that period were no longer true high priests at all, 
since they had acquired their office at the hand of men, and in the way 
of venality, is not very probable, inasmuch as the author would otherwise 
have expressed himself more clearly with regard thereto. 

Vv. 5-10. Demenstration of the presence of the qualification, mentioned 
ver. 4, in the case of Christ also. 

Ver. 5. In like manner also Christ appointed not Himself to be High 
Priest, but God the Father has appointed Him. The main emphasis in 
the verse falls upon ovy éavtdv . . . add 6 Aadgoac. With Hofmann for 
the rest (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 398, 2 Aufl.), to take the opening words of the 
verse : ottw¢ kal 6 Xpiordéc, separately as an independent clause, is not 


1Comp. Xiphilinus, Galb. p. 187: vouigwv tis; jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit, cujus est 
ovK elAnhevar THY apx7yv, dAAG SeddcOat aviTo. magnitudo et potentia et regnum. Quicum- 
2Comp. Bammidbur rabba, sec. 18, fol. 234.4 que igitur contra Aaronem surgit, contra 
(in Sehottgen and Wetstein): Moses ad ipsum Deum surgit. 
Corachum ejusque socios dixit: si Aaron 3Comp. Josephus, Antig. xx. 10. 5: Winer, 
frater meus sibimet ipsi sacerdotium sumsit, Bibl. Realwérterb. I. p. 591, 2 Aufl. 
recte egistis, quod contra Ipsum insurrexis- 


506 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


warranted on any ground. ovy éavrov éddEacev yevnfjvac apxtepéa] He did 
not glorify (comp. John viii. 54) Himself (arbitrarily encircle Himself with 
honor and glory) in order to be made a high priest—éddgacev] is to be taken 
quite generally, so that it first acquires its nearer definition and comple- 
tion, under the form of the intention, by means of yevyfjvar apyiepéa. See 
Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 318]. The referring of the verb, with de Wette, spe- 
cially to the glorification, mentioned ii. 9, is forbidden by the parallel rela- 
tion to ver. 4, in that ovy éavrov éddtacev yevyfivar apyiepéa manifestly 
corresponds exactly to the foregoing statement, ovy éav7@ tie AapBaver rHv 
tyuqv. On account of this parallel relationship in itself, clearly indicated 
as it is above by the otrwe kai, is the view of Hofmann too (Schriftbew. II. 
1, p. 398 f. 2 Aufl.) entirely erroneous, namely, that ovy éavrov éddzacev 
acquires its nearer defining of signification from vv. 7, 8, in that this rela- 
tive clause denotes the same thing as that negative clause, and conse- 
quently is to be brought into relief; not a path of self-glorification was it, 
but a path of anguish and suffering, by which Christ attained to glory. 
The violence done in this explanation is already shown, in the fact that 
the relative clause, ver. 7 ff., is logically subordinate to the oby éavrov 
édéfacev, as a farther demonstration of the truth thereof; and, moreover, in 
this relative clause the mention of the suffering of Christ forms not the 
main element, but only a subsidiary member.—a22’ 6 Aadkjoac mpd¢ abtov 
K.7.2.] sc. avtov éddgacev yevnbyvac apyepéa. The participle aorist AaAgoac is 
anterior in point of time to the édéfacev. Thus 6 AaAgjoac: He who had 
said, sc. before the creation of the world; comp. 1-8. Inasmuch as the 
connection with that which precedes, and the opposition oby éavrdv aan’ 6 
Aarnoac, place it beyond doubt that the author can here only design to 
mention the person or authority by virtue of which Christ possesses His 
high-priesthood, it results that in the words vié¢ yov ef od «7.4. a proof 
for the fact that Christ is High Priest is not to be sought. Against 
Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, Whitby, Peirce, Stengel, 
Ebrard, Maier, and others. If it were here already a question with the 
author of adducing a proof, he would have written without an article a47’ 
6 Oed¢ AaAnoac (“but God, in saying to Him,” etc.), instead of writing 
with the article a2 6 Aadrfoac. But why does not the author simply say 
6 6e6¢? Why does he employ the periphrasis of the idea of God by means 
- of the words (already cited, 1.5) from Ps.ii.7? In order to render already 
apparent, by this designation of God, how little ground can exist for sur- 
prise that He who occupies the rank of the Son of God should, moreover, 
also of God be appointed High Priest. 

Ver. 6 now introduces the proof from Scripture that Christ, the Son of 
God, has also been appointed High Priest.—kafoc cai év érépw Aéyer] as He 
(sc. God) accordingly speaks in another place of Scripture (namely Ps. ex. 
4; comp. Heb. i. 18)—x«ai] belongs not to év érépw,-so that we should 
have to assume that the author has already found in the citation, ver. 5, 
a Scripture proof for the high-priesthood of Christ, and now in ver. 6 is 
adding thereto a second Scripture proof for the same thing (Schlichting, 
Ebrard, and others), but it belongs to the whole relative clause kafa¢ Aéyer, 


CHAP. Vv. 6, a. 507 


and is just the ordinary «ai after a particle of comparison; comp. ver. 4. 
By means of this correct apprehension of the force of «ai the objection is 
further set aside, that ver. 6, if a Scripture proof was first to be given in 
this place, must have been joined on to that which precedes simply with 
Aéywr, as ii. 6, iv. 7, or with paprepet yap, as vil. 17 (Abresch), or with Aéyec 
yap, or at least with xafoc without «ai (Ebrard).—év érépw] See on év rotre, 
iv. 5.—iepetc] for the author equivalent to apyrepeti¢; comp. ver. 10, vi. 
20. This equalization is likewise warranted. For Melchisedec (Gen. xiv. 
18 ff.), with whom the person addressed is compared, was at the same 
time king and priest; but with the attributes of a king the attributes of 
an ordinary priest are irreconcilable; the character sustained by a 
superior or high priest alone comports therewith.—«ara tiv rag Med yuce- 
déc] not: in the time of succession (Schulz), but : after the order or manner 
(7937-22) of Melchisedec, in such wise that thou obtainest the same 
position, the same character, as he possessed. Comp. vil. 15: kara tiv 
éuodtyta MeAyioedéx.—eic Tov ai@va] the author combines (contrary to the 
sense of the original) with ispet¢ into a single idea, comp. vil. 3, 8. 

Vv. 7-10. [LV d.] Further proof—accessory to the Scripture testimony, 
ver. 6—that Christ did not on His own authority usurp to Himself the 
high-priesthood, but was invested with the same by God. Far removed 
from all self-exaltation, He displayed in His earthly life the most perfect 
obedience towards God. In consequence thereof He became, after His 
consummation and glorification, the Procurer (Vermittler) of everlasting 
blessedness for all believers, and was appointed by God High Priest after 
the manner of Melchisedec.—We have to reject the explanation—mainly 
called forth by the expression zpocevéykac (compared with vv. 1 and 3)— 
of Schlichting, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braum, Limborch, Akersloot, Cramer, 
Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Bdhme, Klee, Bloomfield, and others, according 
to which the design in vv. 7-10 is to show that Christ already discharged 
the functions of the high-priestly office during His earthly life, in that He 
offered prayers as sacrifices to God. For evidently the main gist of vy. 
7-10 lies in the words of ver. 8: éuavev aq dv ixadev THY brakogjy, to 
which the statements vy. 9, 10 attach themselves only for the completion 
of the figure traced out vv. 7, 8, and for leading back to ver. 6. But by 
the fact that Christ manifested obedience, it cannot by any means be 
shown that He was already executing the office of High Priest.—Quite 
mistaken also is the opinion of Kurtz, that, vv. 7-10, a “third require- 
ment of the Levitical high-priesthood, namely, obedience to the will of Him 
that founded it” (2), is shown to be satisfied in Christ. For neither does 
the form of the grammatical annexing of ver. 7 to that which precedes 
point in any way to the conclusion that the author designed to string on 
to the two necessary qualifications of the earthly high priest yet a third 
one of equal value; nor, as regards the import, is anything else to be 
found in vv. 7, 8 than a wider unfolding of the foregoing statement, ov x 
éavutov édofdoev yevydivac apyepéa, ver. 5. 

Ver. 7. 0c] [LV e.] refers back to the last main idea, thus to 6 Xprorég, 
ver. 5. The tempus finitum belonging thereto is éua6ev, ver. 8, in that vy. 


508 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


7-10 form a single period, resolving itself into two co-ordinate statements 
. Kat éyévero). To connect the 6é¢ first with éyévero, ver. 9 (so 
Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Stengel, and others), is impossible, since ver. 
8 cannot be taken as a parenthesis.—év rai¢ ijuépace tig capKdc aitov] in the 
days of His flesh, i. e. during the time of His earthly life.’ On the whole 
expression, comp. ii. 14; on ai #uépa, in the more general sense of 6 ypévoe, 
x. 32, xii. 10. False, because opposed to the current linguistic use of cap 
(Gal: ii. 20; 2 Cor. x.3; Phil. i. 22, 24; 1 Pet. iv. 2, al.), and because év rai¢ 
jucpate The capko¢ avtod Obtains its Opposition in reAewheic, ver. 9,—Wwhereby, 
in general, the period of Christ’s life of humiliation is contrasted with the 
period of His life of exaltation,—Schlichting: what is specially meant is 
“tempus infirmitatis Christi, et praesertim illud, quo infirmitas ejus max- 
ime apparuit ... dies illi, quibus Christus est passus.” The note of 
time : év raic juépare TH¢ capKd¢ avTov, however, is to be construed with the 
main verb évafev, not with the participles mpocevéyxac kai eicaxovobeic, Which 
latter form a simply parenthetic clause.—As the occasion of this paren- 
thetic clause deyoere . . . evAaBeiac,—in connection with which we have 
neither, with Theophylact, Peirce, B6hme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, 
Maier, Kurtz, and others, to derive the coloring of the linguistic expres- 
sion from the author’s having respect to certain utterances of the Psalms 
(as Ps. xxii. 25 [24], ibid. ver. 3 [2], exvi.1 ff), nor with Braun, Akersloot, 
Bohme, al., to suppose a reference to the loud praying of the Jewish high 
priest on the great day of atonement; neither is there an underlying 
comparison, as Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 399 f. 2 Aufl.) strangely sup- 
poses, of the supplication of Jesus, which He before (!) the learning of 
obediente offered for Himself as a sacrifice on account of weakness (}), 
with the sin-offering which, according to ver. 8, the Levitical high priest 
had on this day to yfresent for himself before he could yet offer on behalf 
of the people,—the author has present to his mind, according to the pre- 
vailing and, beyond doubt, correct view, the prayer of Christ in Gethsem- 
ane, as this was made known to him by oral or written tradition. [LV /)] 
Comp. Matt. xxvi. 36 ff. ; Mark xiv. 82 ff.; Luke xxii. 39 ff. It is true we 
do not read in our Gospels that Christ at that time prayed to God pera 
daxphov. But, considering the great emotion of mind on the part of the 
Saviour, which is also described in the account given by our evangelists, 
that fact has nothing improbable aboutit; comp. also Luke xix. 41; John 
xi. 35. On account of the addition peta kpavyye ioyvpac, others 
will have us understand the loud crying of Christ upon the cross (Matt. xxvii. 
46; Mark xv. 34), either,’ besides the prayer in Gethsemane, or,* exclusively, 
or even,® the last ery, with which He departed (Matt. xxvii. 50; Mark xv. 37; 


(d¢ éuabev . . 


1Theodoret: ‘Hyépas S& oapkds Tov Tis 
Ovnrétntos épyn Katpov, TovTéoTLY HYika OvnTov 
elxe TO gOpa. ary: 

2Comp. in particular, Matt. xxvi. 37: jp§ato 
Avreto@at Kai adymoverv; Mark xiv. 33: np&ato 
éxOauBetoOar Kai adquoverv; Luke xxii. 44: 
Mat yevouevos ev aywvia EKTEVEeaTEpoY Tpoo- 


nuxeto* éyéveto Sé O idpOs avTod woei OpduBor 
aipatos KataBaivovtes emt Thy yiv. 

3As Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, 
Owen, Limborch, Schulz, Stein, Stuart, De- 
litzsch. 

4 As Cajetan, Estius,Calovy, Hammond, Kurtz, 

5As Klee. 


CHAP. V. 7. 509 


Luke xxiii. 46). The supposition of such references we cannot, with de 
Wette! characterize as “entirely unsuitable.” For de Wette’s objection, 
that the author “manifestly regarded the prayer as the preparation and 
condition of the évafe,” that it must “ thus precede the suffering,” does not 
apply, since mpocevéykac is not to be resolved into “after,” but into “in 
that,” or “inasmuch as.” Not as “ preparation and condition of the éuafe” 
is the prayer looked upon by the author, but rather is the historic fact of 
the fervent prayer of Christ mentioned by him as an evidence that Christ 
in reality submitted Himself to God, even in the severest sufferings. For 
that which Hofmann (I. c. p. 67) objects hereto, that the author, if he had 
meant this, would have written: yafov ag’ ov Exavev tiv DraKkony deyoelg TE 
kal iketnpiac mpoojveyxer, is devoid of sense; because, by means of such a 
transposition, that which is merely a secondary statement would be made 
the main statement. Yet the supposing of such references is not neces- 
sary, since also the plural dejoecc te kat ixerypiac, to which appeal has been 
made, is sufficiently explained by the repetitions of the prayer in the gar- 
den of Gethsemane.—To ixetypia, which conjoined with déjoe further 
occurs LXX. Job xl. 22 [27], as also with the classie writers, éAaia or pafdoc 
(not «4ddoc) is originally to be supplemented, inasmuch as it denotes the 
olive branch which the supplicant pleading for protection bore in his 
hand. Later it acquired like signification with ixere‘a or ixeoia. It implies 
thus the prostrate or urgent entreaty of one seeking refuge. As an inten- 
sifying of déyar¢ it is rightly placed after this.—po¢ tov Suvayevoy o@lewv 
abrov éx Savarov| is most naturally referred to xpocevéyxac (so Calvin, 
Abresch, al.). To the connecting with dejoece Te Kat ixetnpiac? we are forced 
neither by the position before pera kpavy7¢ isyupac, nor by the fact of the 
combination of xpoodépew with the dative being chosen elsewhere in the 
epistle (ix. 14, xi. 4), as it is also the more usual one with classical writers, 
since likewise the conjoining with zpéc is nothing out of the way. Comp. 
e.g. Polyb. iv. 51. 2: TpoceveyKapevoe Tpog TOV’ A YaLov (equivalent to 7@ ” Ayala) 
tiv yapw tattyv. In the characteristic of God as the One who was able to 
deliver Christ from death, there lies, at the same time, the indication of 
that which Christ implored of God. cofecv éx Javarov, however, may 
denote one of two things, either: to save from death, in such wise that it 
needs not to be undergone, thus to preserve from death, or: to save out of 
the death to which one is exposed, so that one does not remain the prey 
of death, but is restored to life. In favor of the former interpretation 
seems to plead the fact that Christ, according to the account in the Gos- 
pels, in reality prayed that He might be spared the suffering of death. 
Nevertheless what decides against this, and in favor of the second, is the 
consideration, in the first place, that Christ in reality still suffered death, 
and then the addition in our verse that the prayer of Christ was 
answered. And then, finally, we have to take into account the fact that, 
according to our Gospels also, Christ does not pray absolutely to be pre- 


1Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 2Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Ab 
70 f. 2 Aufl. ford, Maier, Moll. 


510 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


served from death, but makes this His wish dependent upon the will of 
the Father, thus entirely subordinates Himself to the Father.—xai eioaxove- 
Bele ard THE evaaBeiac] and being heard by reason of His piety, or fear of God. 
[LV g.] In this sense is edAdBeva (cf. xii. 28) rightly taken by Chrysostom, 
Photius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, the Vulgate (pro sua reverentia), Vigil. 
Taps., Primasius, Lyra, Luther, Castellio, Camerarius, Estius, Casaubon, 
Caloy, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Rambach, Heinrichs, Schulz, Bleek, Bisping, 
Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr, p. 327), Alford, Reuss, Maier, 
Moll, Kurtz, and others.!| a6, as an indication of the occasioning cause, is 
also of very frequent occurrence elsewhere; cf. Matt. xxviii. 4; Luke xix. 
3, xxiv. 41; John xxi. 6; Acts xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11; Kiihner, Gramm. I, 
p. 270. Christ, however, was heard in His prayer, inasmuch as He was 
raised out of death, exalted to the right hand of God, and made partaker 
of the divine glory. To be rejected is the explanation of the word pre- 
ferred by Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Scaliger, Schlichting, Grotius, 
Owen, Hammond, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Whitby, Carpzov, 
Abresch, BGhme, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Stuart, Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield, 
Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 665), 
Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, p. 69, 2 Aufl.), and many others, according to 
which a pregnancy of meaning is assumed for the same, and eiAdBeva is 
interpreted in the sense of “ metus :” “ heard (and delivered) from the fear.” 
There is then found expressed in it either the thought (and this is the com- 
mon acceptation) that Christ was delivered from His agony of soul by the 
strengthening on the part of the angel, Luke xxii. 43, or evAdBea is under- 
stood by metonymy of the object of the fear, 7. e. death, from which Christ 
was delivered by the resurrection. So, among others, Calvin: “ exaudi- 
tum fuisse Christum ex eo, quod timebat, ne scilicet malis obrutus suc- 
cumberet, vel morée absorberetur ;” and Schlichting: “a metu i.e. ab eo, 
quod metuebat, nimirum morte.” But against the first modification of 
this view pleads the fact that the being heard must refer to the same thing as 
that for which Christ had prayed, but from that which precedes it is evi- 
dent that Christ had besought God not for deliverance from the agony of 
soul, but for deliverance from death. Against both modifications pleads 
the fact that the strong signification of fear is never expressed by eiAdBea. 
Only the mild signification of timidity or awe (whether reverential awe of 
the Godhead, i. e. piety, or shyness of earthly things), as well as the notion 
arising from that of timidity, namely heedfulness, discretion, cireumspect- 
ness in arranging that which is adapted to the bringing about of a definite 
result, lies in the word; as accordingly also the Greeks themselves, par- 
ticularly the Stoics, expressly distinguished from each other 4680¢ and 
evadBeca, and pronounced ¢680¢ to be worthy of reprobation ; edAdBeca, on 


1JIn this explanation Linden on Heb, vy. 7-9 not natural, inasmuch as éuaGev already has 
(Stud. u. Krit. 1860, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) likewise a nearer definition before and after it, and 
concurs, only he would have amd tis evAa- . the linguistic symmetry with the foregoing 
Betas separated by acomma from that which  participial clause is destroyed by the eiow 
precedes, and taken in conjunction with that — ckovo@eis standing alone. 
whieh follows. This construction, however, is 


CHAP. Vv. 8. 511 
the other hand, to be a duty. See the instances in Bleek. Nor do the 
passages anew adduced by Grimm, /. c., Wisd. xvii. 8, 2 Mace. viii. 16, Ec- 
clus. xli. 3, in which the word is supposed to be used in the sense of 
fear, and the demonstrative force of which is acknowledged by Delitzsch 
(p. 190, and Observy. and Correctt.), Riehm (J. c.), and Moll, prove what 
they are thought to prove. For in the first-mentioned passage we have to 
understand by kateyéAaoroc evAdBera the perverted, idolatrous, and there- 
fore ridiculous religious awe of the Egyptian magicians ; the second pass- 
age is only a dissuasive against standing in any awe of the outward super- 
iority in force of the hostile army; and the third, finally, against feeling 
any awe of death, since this is the common lot of all men. The notion 
of mere awe, however, is, on account of the preceding strong expressions, 
peta Kpavyye toyupac kal daxpiwv, unsuited to our passage.! In addition to 
this, the assumed constructio praegnans in connection with a verb like 
eloakovod Arar is, In any case, open to doubt, and is not yet at all justi- 
fied by the alleged parallels which have been adduced.2—The addition kai 
eloakovotele ard TIc evAaBeiac contains, for the rest, logically regarded, merely 
a parenthetic remark, called forth only by the contents of the foregoing 
participial clause. 

Ver. 8. Kairep ov vide] belongs together. With Heinrichs and others, 
to construe «aizep with éuafev, and in this way to enclose ver. 8 within a 
parenthesis, is forbidden by the grammar, since xaizep is never combined 
with a tempus finitum. xairep Ov vidc, however, is to be connected neither, 
by virtue of an hyperbaton, with defoee . . . mpooevéyxac, which Photius 
(in Oecumenius) and Clarius consider permissible, but which is already 
shown to be impossible by means of the addition kai eicaxovobeic ard rhe 
evAaBeiac, nor yet with xa? eicaxovobeic ard tic ebAaPBeiac itself (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact). For against the latter xairep is decisive, according to which 
the property of Sonship is insisted on as something in consequence of 
which the main statement might appear strange; it is not, however, 
strange, but, on the contrary, congruent with nature, if any one is heard 
by the Father on account of his sonship. xairep ov vide belongs, therefore, 
to éuabev ad’ Ov éxabev tHv braxofv, and serves to bring the same into relief 
by way of contrast. Notwithstanding the fact that Christ was a Son, He 


will. 


lAccording to Tholuck, the author has 
before his mind the first petition of the Re- 
deemer in prayer at Gethsemane, the petition 
with et dvvarov, in which is expressed a con- 
dition of “lingering hesitancy,” of “ detrec- 
tatio” (!), which also according to him evAa- 
Beva exactly indicates. From this hesitancy, 
which with the Redeemer continued just so 
long as He was absorbed in an abstract man- 
ner in the greatness of the impending suffer- 
ing, He was delivered. Thus, it is true, the 
first prayer uttered in this condition remained 
unfulfilled, but it was certainly annulled in 
the second, wherein His own will had be- 
come perfectly harmonized with the divine 


So Tholuck. But neither does evAaBera 
ever signify “lingering hesitancy ” (not even 
in Plutarch, Fab. Maz. ec. 1, where it denotes 
nothing more than caution or wariness). 

2Namely Ps. xxii. 22 [21] (0°77 *327pD) 
“uv sy, which, however, the LXX. did not 
understand, and reproduced without preg- 
naney); LXX. Job xxxy. 12 (€xet kexpatorrar 
kat ov pH evoakovon [Kai] ard UBpews Tovnparv, 
where, however,-a7d «.7.A., as in the Hebrew, 
refers back to the first verb); Ps. exviii. 5 (kat 
emnKkouce tov els mAaTUcMoY KUptos); Heb. x. 
22 (€pprvtitpmeéevor Tas Kapdias amd cuverdnoews 
movnpas). 


612 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


learned from suffering (learned, in that He suffered) obedience, resigna- 
tion to the will of the Father. Comp. Phil. ii. 6-8.—The article before 
traxoyvy marks the definite virtue of obedience. The article here cannot 
denote, as Hofmann will maintain (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 72, 2 Aufl.), the 
obedience “already present,” or the obedience “in which Jesus stood.” 
For, on the one hand, there must then have been previous mention of 
the obedience of Jesus, which is not the case; and then, on the other 
hand, we cannot any longer predicate the learning of a virtue of one in 
whom this virtue is already present. But altogether, that which Hofmann 
brings out as the import of ver. 8 is a wonderful Quid pro quo. Instead 
of recognizing, to wit, in vv. 7, 8 the sharply and clearly defined leading 
statement: 6¢ év Taic yuépac THE CapKoc avTOU . . . éuabev . . . THv braKof#v, In 
itself, and in its simply confirmatory relation to ovy éavrov édédgacev, ver. 5, 
Hofmann will have the stress to be laid upon the subsidiary defining note 
ag’ ov éxabev, and then, moreover, make the whole weight of the words: 
kairep Ov vioc, fall upon that same a@’ dv éxafev! In this way the thought 
expressed in ver. 8 is, forsooth: that Jesus afterwards (!) suffered that (!) 
for the averting of which He had made entreaty. The special point is 
not that He learnt anything as Son, nor that He learnt obedience (? !). 
He did not learn to obey, but the obedience in which He stood, He now 
(!) or in a new manner (!) so learnt, as it should there (!) be exercised, 
where (!) it was a question (!) of suffering. And this is to be taken as the 
meaning, in spite of the fact—apart from all other arbitrary assumptions 
—that we have a@’ dv érafev written, and not even év oi¢ éxabev, which at 
least must be expected as a support for such an exposition as that ?— 
éuabev] The disposition of obedience Christ possessed even before the 
suffering. But this needed, in order to become vouched for, to be tested 
in action. And tlfis continued development of the disposition of obedi- 
ence into-the act of obedience is nothing else than a practical learning of 
the virtue of obedience —az76 with, wavaver, as Matt. xxiv. 32, xi. 29, 
denoting the starting-point.—a¢’ dv éxafev] well-known attraction in place 
of ar éxeivwr & xaf_ev—The combination éuabev . . . éxabev is also of fre- 
quent occurrence with the classic writers and with Philo.’ 

Ver. 9. Kai rerewfeic] and being brought to consummation, i.e. being 
crowned with glory by His exaltation to heaven (comp. ii. 9, 10), se. in 
consequence of the obedience to God proved by His sufferings and death 
—iyévero] He became. Author and Mediator of everlasting blessedness for 
His believers, Christ certainly was even during His earthly life. But in 
an eminent manner, because formally and manifestly accredited by God 
as such, He became so first by His resurrection and exaltation.—raouw] 
perhaps added in order to indicate the equal claim of the believing Gen- 
tiles also, to the salvation in Christ.—roic éraxobovoww airé] The expression 


1Comp. Herod. i. 207: ra S€ por wabyjpata, 
axapiora, paOnuata yeyovev; Soph. 
Trach. 142 f.: as & éym @vpopOopa, mrt’ éxma- 
Gors ma8ovca; Xenoph. Cyrop. ili. 1.17: raO@nwa 
apa Tis Wuxas ov A€yets tivar THY gwppocvvyy, 


»s 
e€ovTa 


womep AUTHY, OV maOnua; Philo, de speciall, 
legg. 6 (with Mangey, II. p. 340): ” ex tov 
madeitvy wan. Many other instances in Wet 
stein. 


cHaAP, v. 9-11. . 513 


attaches itself in point of form to rv braKoqy, ver. 8, with which it forms 
a paronomasia; in point of subject-matter it is not different from roic¢ 
motevovow (iv. 3). Comp. Rom. x. 16; 2 Thess. i. 8, al—The mode of 
expression: aitiév Teve eivae ouotypias (comp. Tov apynyov THe owTHpiac 
avrov, ii. 10), [LV h.] is also often met with in Philo, Josephus, and the 
classical writers.!. The adjective aitévco¢g with owrypia in the N. T. only 
here. Comp., however, LXX. Isa. xlv. 17. 

Ver. 10 [LV i.] is not to be separated from ver. 9 by a colon, and to be 
referred back to all that precedes, from ver. 7 onwards (B6hme). On the 
contrary, the statement connects itself closely with ver. 9, in that it con- 
tains an elucidation of the aitv¢ cwrnpiag aiwviov there found. Christ be- 
came for all believers author of everlasting blessedness, in that He was 
saluted (or named) of God as High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec. 
That is to say: In order to become the mediate cause of salvation for 
others, Christ must be the possessor of high-priestly dignity; but this was 
ascribed to Him on the part of God in the utterance from the psalm, 
already cited in ver. 6. Bengel: tpoonyopia, appellatio sacerdotis, non 
solum secuta est consummationem Jesu, sed antecessit etiam passionem, 
tempore Psalmi cx. 4.—To appoint or constitute (Casaubon : constitutus ; 
Schulz: proclaimed, publicly declared or appointed ; Stengel : declared, 
appointed ; Bloomfield: being proclaimed and constituted) tpocayopet- 
evv, a drag Aeyduevov in the N. T., never means; but only to address, 
salute, name. 

Ver. 11-vi. 20. [On Vv. 11-14, see Note LVI., pages 522, 523.] The author 
is on the point of turning to the nearer presentation of the dignity of 
High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec, which pertains to Christ, 
and thus of His superiority over the Levitical high priests. But before he 
passes over to this, he complains in a digression of the low stage of Chris- 
tian knowledge at which the readers are yet standing, whereas they ought 
- long ago themselves to have been teachers of Christianity; exhorts them 
to strive after manhood and maturity in Christianity, and with warning 
admonition points out that those who have already had experience of the 
rich blessing of Christianity, and nevertheless apostatize from the same, 
let slip beyond the possibility of recall the Christian salvation ; then, how- 
ever, expresses his confidence that such a state of things will not be the case 
with the readers, who have distinguished themselves, and still do distin- 
guish themselves, by works of Christian love, and indicates that which he 
desires of them,—namely, endurance to the end,—while at the same time 
reminding them of the inviolability of the divine promise and the objec- 
tive certainty of the Christian hope. 

Ver. 11. Mept ob] [LVI a] sc. Xpiotod apyepéoc xara tv razw Medyioedéx. 
To this total-conception, as is also recognized by Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
Hebriierbr. p. 780), is wep? ob to be referred back. We have to supplement 
not merely Xpiorod (Oecumenius, Primasius, Justinian), because that 
would be a far too general defining of the object, inasmuch as confessedly 


1 Instances in Wetstein, Kypke, and Bleek. 
33 


514 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

the discourse is not first about Christ in the sequel, but everywhere 
throughout the epistle. But neither is MeAyioedéx to be supplied to oi! 
For even though—a fact to which Bleek appeals—the author, after hay- 
ing concluded the digression (vii. 1 f.), begins by characterizing this same 
Melchisedec, yet this description is subordinated to a higher aim, that of 
setting forth the high-priestly dignity of Christ; as surely also the refer- 
ence of vii. 1 ff. to the close of the digression (vi. 20) clearly shows, since 
the former is represented by yap as only the development now begun of 
the main consideration: "Iycot¢ kata tyv TaELty MeAyroedéix apyre- 
pevo yevomevog cic Tov aidva, taken up anew, vi. 20. To take ov as a 
neuter,? and to refer it to the high-priesthood of Christ after Melchisedec’s 
manner,—according to which ov would thus have to be resolved into zepi 
Tov Tpooayopevtyvar avTov bd Tov Geov apylepéa Kata THY Tafw MedAyioedéx,— 
is possible indeed, but not so natural as when it is taken as a masculine, 
since the discourse in that which precedes was about the definite person 
of Christ.—rodi¢ juiv 6 Adyoc] sc. éoriv. [LVI b.] Wrongly, because other- 
wise dv ei7 must have been added, and because a detailed development 
of the subject really follows afterwards; Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, and 
others: concerning which we should have much to speak.—xai] and ° 
indeed.—éyew | belongs to ducepujvevroc. Heinrichs erroneously joins it 
with juiv 6 Aédyoc—Even on account of the connectedness of the Aéyew 
with dusepufvevtoc, but also on account of the preceding 77», followed by 
no tpiv, it is inadmissible,’ to suppose the difficulty of the exposition or 
rendering intelligible of the Aéyoc to exist on the part of the readers, and 
thus to interpret dvcepujvevtoc in the sense of dvovéyroc, 2 Pet. iii. 16. On 
the contrary, as the author has abundant material for discoursing on the 
subject announced, so is it also difficult for the author to render himself 
intelligible thereon to the readers. The ground of this difficulty which 
obtains for him is introduced, by the clause with érei, which on that 
account is to be referred only to dvcspupvevtoc Aéyew, not at the same time 
(Hofmann) to rodtic juiv 6 Aédyoc. For the rest, Storr and Bleek have 
already rightly remarked, that in the connecting of Adyor with the two 
predicates odie and ducepuqvevtoc a sort of zeugma is contained, inasmuch 
as Adyoc is to be taken in relation to the first predicate actively, in relation 
to the second passively. On the high-priesthood of Christ after the man- 
ner of Melchisedec, the author has much fo speak ; and truly it is difficult 
for him to make plain to his readers the contents or subject of his discourse. 
—yeyévare] [LVI c.] characterizes the spiritual sluggishness or dullness of 
the readers not as something which was originally inherent in them, but 
only as something which afterwards manifested itself in connection with 


1 Peshito, Calvin [Piscator hesitates between 
this and the following application], Owen, 
Schéttgen, Peirce, Semler, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
Bleek, de Wetie, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, al. 

2With Grotius, Cramer, Storr, Abresch, 
Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Bisp- 
ing, Delitasch, Kurtz, and others. 


8 With Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Peirce, Chr. 
Fr. Schmid, Valekenaer, Kuinoel, and others. 
4This is erroneously denied by Delitzsch 
and Alford. Even the two instances from 
Dionys. Halicarn., on which Delitzsch relies, 


‘plead against him. 


CHAP. v. 12. 515 


them.’—vwpéc] in the N. T. only here and vi. 12.—rai¢ axoaic] with regard 
to the hearing, i.e. the spiritual faculty of comprehension? The plural is 
used, inasmuch as the discourse is of a multitude of persons. On the 
dative, instead of which the accusative might have been placed, comp. 
Winer, p. 202 [E. T. 215]. 

Ver. 12. Justification of the reproach: vwtpoi yeyovate tate axoaic, ver. 11. 
—xai yap dpeiaovres eivar diddoxaror] for when ye ought to have been teachers. 
cai gives intensity to the ogeiAovrec elvar didacxador, Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, 
al. Arbitrarily Bloomfield (ed. 8), according to whom an intermediate 
link is to be supplied in connection with «a yap: “[And such ye are,] 
for though ye ought, according to the time, to be teachers,” ete.—d:a rov 
ypévor] by reason of the space of time, @.e. because already so considerable 
a space of time has passed since ye became Christians. In like manner 
is da Tov ypdvov often employed by classical writers.*—As regards that 
which follows, there is a controversy as to whether we have to accentuate 
viva or tuvd. [LVI d.] The word is taken as an interrogative particle by 
the Peshito and Vulgate, Augustine, Tract. 98 in Joh. ; Schlichting, 
Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Abresch, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, 
Tischendorf, Stengel, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
des Hebraerbr. p. 780; Reuss, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, and 
the majority. As an indefinite pronoun, on the other hand, it is taken by 
Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Peirce, Cramer, Heinrichs, Bohme, Lach- 
mann, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping, Alford, Woerner, and others. The 
latter alone is grammatically possible. For in the opposite case, since the 
subject is a varying one in the tempus finitum (ypeiav éxere) and the infini- 
tive (d:déoxerv), either the infinitive passive must be written, tov dcdaoke- 
ofac tuac, or to the infinitive active a special accusative of the subject 
(perhaps éué) must be further added. Nor is 1 Thess. iv. 9 decisive in 
opposition hereto, since there the reading of Lachmann: od xpeiav 
éyomev ypadew syiv, is the only correct one. See, besides, the remarks in 
my Commentary on the Thessalonians, ad loc. As, moreover, in a gram- 
matical respect, so also in a logical respect is the accentuation tiva to be 
rejected. For upon the adopting thereof the thought would arise, that 
the readers anew required instruction upon the question: which articles 
are to be reckoned among the oro.xeia tHe apyic TOV Aoyiwv Tov Geov, OF else: 
of what nature these are. But manifestly the author is only complaining— 
as is plain also from the explicative clause: kat yeyévate «.7.2.—of the fact 
that the readers, who ought long ago to have been qualified for instruct- 
ing others, themselves still needed to be instructed in the orovyeia. While, 
for the rest, de Wette and Riehm erroneously find in the indefinite twa 


1Chrysostom: 70 yap eimety émet vwOpot 
yeyovate Tais akoats SyAovvTos Hv, OTL maAat 
vyla.vov Kal yoav ioxupol, TH TpoOvmLa CEeovTes, 
Kal VOTEpPOY aV’TOUS TOTO TaMety mapTupEl. 

2Comp. Philo, Quis rer. divin. haeres. p. 483 
(with Mangey, I. p. 474): év aWvxots avdpracuy, 
ols @ta mév EaTtuv, akoal Sé ovK Everowy. 


3Comp. e. g. Aelian, Var. Hist. iii. 37: ot 
mavy map’ avrois yeyynpaxdres . . . mivovat 
Kévevov, btav Eavtors cuvedaauv, OTL mpos Ta 
épya Ta TH Tatpid. AvotTedodyTaA aX PNTTOL 
ciowv, YroAnpovans H5y Te avTOts Kat THS YYOUNS 
Sua Tov xpovor. 


516 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

“too strong a signification,” Delitzsch is equally mistaken in characteriz- 
ing it as “ unmeaning ” and “ flat.” With justice does Alford remark, in 
opposition to the last-named: “So far from twa, some one, being, as 
Delitzsch most absurdly says, ‘matt und nichtssagend,’ it carries with it 
the fine keen edge of reproach ; q. d. to teach you what all know, and any 
can teach.”—iyuac] preposed to the td, in order to bring into the more 
marked relief the antithesis to eiva: diddcxato.—The notion of rudimenta 
already existing in 7a orovyeia is made yet more definitely prominent 
by the genitive t#¢ apy7e (Calvin: “ quo plus incutiat pudoris ”). Thus: 
the very first primary grounds or elements.\—rov Aoyiwv tov eov] of the utter- 
ances of God. Comp. Acts vii. 88; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rom. iii. 2. What is 
intended is the saving revelations of Christianity, which God has caused 
to be proclaimed as His word. To think of the Old Testament prophe- 
cies, and their interpretation and reference to the Christian relations, is 
inadmissible; since the expression ta Aéyia rov Yeov, in consideration of 
its generality, always acquires its nearer defining of meaning only from 
the context, while here, that which was, ver. 12, mentioned as ra orovyeia 
THE apxyRc Tov Aoyiwv Tov Beov, is immediately after (vi. 1) designated 6 rie 
apxi¢ Tow Xpiotov Adyoc.—yeyévare] reminds anew, even as the preceding 
maacv, of the earlier more gladdening spiritual condition of the readers. 
—yahaxtocg Kai ov otepeac tpodyc] On the figure, comp. 1 Cor. ili. 2: yada 
iuac éxética, ob Bpdoua.—By the milk, the author understands the elemen- 
tary instruction in Christianity; by the solid food, the more profound dis- 
closures with regard to the essence of Christianity, for the understanding 
of which a Christian insight already more matured is called for. In con- 
nection with the former, he thinks of the doctrinal topics enumerated vi. 
1, 2 (not, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, 
Clarius, and others suppose, of the doctrine of the humanity of Christ in 
contradistinction from that of His Godhead, which is foreign to the con- 
text); in connection with the latter, mainly of the subject, just the treat- 
ment of which will pre-eminently occupy him in the sequel,—the high- 
priesthood of Christ after the manner of Melchisedec.—The statement of 
ver. 12 has been urged by Mynster,* Ebrard, and others, in proof that the 
Epistle to the Hebrews cannot have been addressed to the Palestinean 
congregations, particularly not to the congregation at Jerusalem. The 
tenor of the verse might, it is true, appear strange, considering that the 
congregation at Jerusalem was the parent congregation of all the others, 
and out of its midst had proceeded the most distinguished teachers of 
Christianity. Nevertheless this last fact is not at all called in question by 


TeAciors Sé Ta Ek TUPOY TEMmaTa, Kal Wux7s 
yadaxTwoders ev Gv elev Tpopal Kara Thy TaLduKHy 


1 Analogous is the use of the Latin prima 
rudimenta, Justin. vii. 5; Liv. i. 3; prima 


elementa, Horace, Serm. i. 1. 26; Quintil. i. 1. 
%3, 35; Ovid, Fast. iii. 179. 

2 Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Stengel, 
and others; comp. also Hofmann and Woer- 
ner ad loc. 

3Philo, de Agricult. p. 188 (with Mangey, I. 
p. 301): ’Emei S€ vntiots wev eote yada Tpody, 


HAtkiay, Ta THS EyKUKALOV MOVOLKHS mpoTracded- 
pata’ TéAecae 5€ kai avdpaow evmpereis ai dra 
ppovyigews Kal cwhpodvvys Kal amagns apeTns 
vdnynoers. Quod omnis prolus liber, p. 889 A 
(II. p. 470), ad. 

4 Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1829, H. 2, p. 338. 


CHAP. Vis, 1. 517 
the statement of the verse. For the author has present to his mind the 
condition of the congregation as it was in his own time; he is addressing 
—in favor of which also d:a@ tov ypdvov pronounces—a second generation 
of Palestinean Christianity. The narrow-minded tendency, however, 
which this second generation had assumed, instead of advancing in its 
growth to the recognition of the freedom and universality of Christianity 
as the most perfect religion, might well justify with regard to it the utter- 
ance of a reproach such as we here meet with. Only thus much follows 
from the words,—what is also confirmed by xii. 7,—that when the author 
wrote, James the Lord’s brother had already been torn from the congre- 
gation at Jerusalem by death, since he would otherwise certainly have 
written in another tone. 

Vv. 13, 14. Establishing of the yeyévate ypeiav iEyovtec yddAaxtoc Kal ov 
otepeac tpogyc, ver. 12. Sense: for it is universally characteristic of him who 
(in a spiritual respect) has need of milk, that he is, because not of ripe age, 
still inexperienced in the Aédyoc dixavocivyc ; and this is just your case. Solid 
food, on the other hand, is proper only for the réevor; réAevor, however, ye are 
not yet. [LVI e.] In connection with this acceptation of the words, there 
is no occasion for finding anything out of place in the yd@p in relation to 
that which precedes, and either, with Storr, making it co-ordinate with 
the yap, ver. 12, and referring it back like this to ver. 11,—which on ac- 
count of the figure vv. 13, 14, retained from ver. 12, is already seen to be 
inadmissible,—or for saying, with Bleek and Bisping, that the progress of 
thought would come out more naturally if the author had written: dc 
yap 6 arepoc Adyov Sikatocbvyg petéyet yaAaKktoc’ vATi¢g ydp éoTw.—d pETéEYuV 
yadaxtoc] he who (in a spiritual respect) partakes of milk, i.e. only in this 
possesses his nourishment, is not in a position to take in solid food.’— 
areipog Adyov dikatocivyc] se. éotiv, he is still inexperienced in the word of 
righteousness. [LVI f.]| Expositors have almost without exception been 
-guided by the presupposition (as also Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Kurtz 
still are) that Adyo¢ dixacocbvyc is only a varying form of expression for the 
same idea as is expressed, vv. 12, 14, by oreped rpodq, or, vi. 1, by redecdrye. 
Adyoc dSixacocivyc has then either been taken as equivalent to Adyoc dixavog 
or téAevoc, and the higher, more perfect type of doctrine found indicated in 
the expression.?. Or dckavocivyg has been more correctly regarded as geni- 
tive of the object. In the latter case dicatoctvy is taken either, as Michaelis, 
ad Peirc., with an appeal to the Hebrew P75, in the sense of aiteva,* as 


1Bengel: Lacte etiam robusti vescuntur, 
sed non lacte praecipue, nedum lacte solo. 
Ttaque notantur hoe loco ii, qui nil denique 
nisi lac aut capiunt aut petunt. 

2So Schlichting (“sermo justitiae videtur 
positus pro sermone justo, h. e. perfecto ac 
solido”), Grotius (“ Hie écxatoovvys dixit pro 
TeAeLoTynTos .. . et genitivus est pro adject- 
ivo”’), Abresch (“ doctrina vel institutio justa, 
h. e. perfecta, plena, omnia complectens, quae 
ad perspicuam distinctamque pertineant doc- 


trinae Christianae intelligentiam’’), Schulz 
(“that true [rightly so called] higher doc- 
trine”), Kuinoel, Bisping, Kurtz, and many 
others. 

3 Delitzsch, too, with an illusion to the use 
of pis, Ww, ow, takes é&txatocvvyn as 
a synonym of aA7jGeva ; but will then have the 
genitive dixacoovvys looked upon not as ex- 
pressing the contents, butas a defining of the 
quality of Aoyos, and will interpret Adyos of 
the faculty of speech. Thus, then, Adyes 


518 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the doctrine of the essence of the matter itself, in opposition to the typical 
figures thereof; or 2édyoc dikatootyy¢ is understood specially, as by Oecu- 
menius, of the Adyog repi ti¢ YedryTo¢ Tod Kupiov, or, as by Carpzov, of the: 
“ doctrina de sacerdotio Jesu Christi Melchisedeciano, quae dicitur 6 Adéyo¢ 
Sixavoobyy¢ propterea, quia Melchisedecus, vi nominis, Bacizede dixaroobvyc 
vertitur, vil. 2, eaque appellatio ad Christum sacerdotem applicatur, cujus 
mpérov fuit mAypdcat racav dixacoobvyv, Matt. ii. 15;” or the words are 
made to refer, as by Primasius, Zeger, Bengel, de Wette, and others, to 
intellectual and moral perfection in general, as also already Chrysostom, who 
explains the expression by 7 dvw @Aocogia (and after him Theophylact), 
leaves us the choice of understanding the ioc dxpoc Kai AKprBwpévoc 
(according to Matt. v. 20), or tov Xpiordv kat tov byyddv epi aitovd Aéyov. 
But the fundamental presupposition, out of which all these interpreta- 
tions have sprung, is an erroneous one. For the emphasis falls not upon 
Adéyou dixaoobync, but upon the adzecpoc, on that account preposed. Not 
for a non-possession of the Adyoc dicacoovyc, but only for a want of expe- 
rience in the same, only for an insufficient, schoolboy’s knowledge of it, 
does the author blame the readers. The Adyoce dixacoobvy¢ in itself, there- 
fore, stands as indifferently related to the notion of the oreped tpodh or 
rerewéryc as to the notion of the oroyeia, to which Ebrard reckons it. Only 
by the more or less exhaustive imparting of its subject-matter does it be- 
come the one or the other. For the word of righteousness is nothing 
more than a periphrasis of Christianity or the gospel, inasmuch as just the 
righteousness availing with God! is the central-point of its contents. 


dixatogvvys is taken to mean: “the faculty to the connection, as Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 


of speaking in accordance with righteous- 
ness,” i.e. the “discourse on spiritual things 
which is guided in strict accord with the 
norm of the true, and harmoniously com- 
bines all the factors.of the case, proportion- 
ately regarded, without leaving one of them 
out, of sight ;” and in yer. 13 is supposed to be 
contained the following “most rigid connec- 
tion of ideas:” “he who must still receive 
niilk is still ignorant of rightly-constituted, 
i.e. right-teaching or orthodox, discourse; 
for he isa child only beginning to lisp, and 
not yet capable of speech.” This strange 
view, based upon the incomprehensible 
grounds, that “since vymos (from vy and ézros) 
denotes one incapable of speech, an infant, 
there is a presumption in favor of Adyos in 
ametpos Adyov Sikacoovvys having the signi- 
fication of faculty of speech,—and this 
signification is here the more probable in 
regard to the aig@yTypia occurring in the 
antithetic parallel clause, inasmuch as 0 Aoyos, 
in the sense of language, is met with count- 
less times in Philo along with the aio@nors or 
the mévte aic@joes, of Which the organs are 
known as aio@ytHpia,’—bears its refutation 
upon the face of it. It is not at all suitable 


Hebrdéerbr. p. 734) and Alford have already 
observed; since according to this there is no 
question as to the faculty for speaking on 
spiritual subjects, but only as to the faculty 
for understanding the same.—As “discourse” 
will Hofmann also have Adyos interpreted, in 
that he fully subtilizes the notion lying in 
S:xkavocvvy, and finds indicated by the total 
expression Adyos dSuxatoovvys only “ correct 
discourse.” For, according to him, the words 
ver. 13 are used in their most literal sense, 
and allude to the fact that he who is still fed 


- with milk at the maternal breast is as yet no 


judge of correct discourse! 

10f the righteousness availing with God 
(comp. also xi. 7), have Beza, Jac. Cappellus, 
Peirce, Storr, Klee, Tholuck, Bleek, Stein, 
Ebrard, Bloomfield, and others already 
rightly interpreted d:cavocvvy.—In the above 
exposition, Alford,, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
Hebrderbr. p. 733), and Woerner have con- 
eurred; save that, according to Riehm, by 
virtue of an over-refined distinction, the 
gospel is not called the word of righteous. 
ness “because the righteousness availing 
with God is the central-point of its contents,” 
but “because it leads to righteousness; 


NOTES. 


519 


Quite analogous to this mode of designation is the Pauline characteriza- 
tion of the gospel office of teaching by 7 dcaxovia tHe Suxavoobyys, 2 Cor. iil. 


9, and of the teachers of Christianity 


by diakovor dixavoabvys, 2. Cormsx. 103 


on which account also it is unnecessary, for the justification of the expres- 
sion chosen, with Bleek, Bisping, and Maier, to assume an allusion to the 
exposition of the name Melchisedec, Bacirede dexacoobvyc, given Mile 


virwoc yap éotw] for he is still a babe, a novice in Christianity. 


Setting 


forth of the naturalness of the azerpo¢ Zéyou diKavoovvys. 

Ver. 14. The opposition: for perfect or more matured Christians, on 
the other hand (and only for them), is the solid food—reAeioy is with 
emphasis preposed.—rév dia tiv éEw x.7.A.] more precise characterizing 


of the réAewr: for those who, etc.—é 
It corresponds to the Latin habitus, and is 


the N. T. a azag& Acyopevov. 


used in particular of the condition produced by use and wont. 


ec] like the following aio Sntipiov, in 


Here it 


denotes the capacity or dexterity acquired by practice.'—ra aioSnthpia] the 
organs of the senses ; transferred to that which is spiritual: the power of 


apprehension 2—yeyvuracpéva] Predicate ; 


literally: as exercised.\—rpoc 


dudkpiow K.7.2.] for the distinguishing of good and bad. [LVI g.] The words 


may be taken with yeyuuvacpvéva, or 
expression yeyuzvacpéva éxdvtwv. 


The kaaév te kal Kkakév, 


they may be taken with the whole 


however, is 


to be understood of the right and the wrong, or of the wholesome and the 
pernicious, not, with Stein, of that which is morally good or evil.* [LVI h.] 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LV. Vv. 1-10. 


(a) This passage presents, 


qualifications which are necessary for the high-priestly office. 
is set forth in vv. 1-3; the second, in ver. 4. 


as is generally admitted by commentators, two 


The first of these 
The second qualification is 


‘perfectly evident from the words used: the high-priest must not take the office 
for himself, but must be called to it by God. There can be as little doubt as to 


the general meaning of what is said respecting the first qualification. 


The con- 


struction of the sentence in which it is described, however, is somewhat question- 
able. The order of the words, as Liinem., also remarks, shows that & avdporwv 


because, by its proclamation to man, the 
possibility is created and the opportunity is 
afforded of entering into a condition of the 
rightness of his relation to God, inasmuch, 
namely, as he assumes a believing attitude 
towards the word proclaimed.” But why 
should the author, familiar as he was with 
Paul’s manner of teaching, and attaching his 
own doctrinal presentation thereto,—albeit 
with independence of character,—have 
shrunk from recognizing, as the central 
theme of the gospel, “the righteousness 
which avails with God,” since even this was 
only a general notion, which did not exclude 
a peculiar conception and treatment, where 


it was a question of the development of de- 
tails, and insistance thereon ? 

1Comp. Quintil. x. 1. 1: firma quaedam 
facilitas, quae apud Graecos égs nominatur. 

2Comp. LXX. Jer. iv. 19: ra aig@ntypra 77S 
Wuxys ov. 

30n the whole turn of discourse, comp. 
Galen, De dignot. puls. 3 (in Wetstein): 6s pev 


‘yap... To aig@nTypov ExeL yeyURVacLEevov 


ixavas ... oUTOS apioTos ay ely yromwr. 
4Chrysostom: viv ov mept Biov avTe 0 
Adyos, Stay Ayn’ mpos Staxprory Kkadov Kat 
Kaxov (TOTO yap wavTi avOpwuTw SuvaTov etdevat 
kai evKoAOV) GAA® Tmept SoymaTwv Vyiay Kat 
DYNA, StePOappévwv TE Kat TAMELVOV. 


520 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


AauPavouevog belongs with the predicate, and not with the subject. It is clear, 
also, that the writer is not, as yet, contrasting the heavenly and the earthly high- 
priests, as he does in chs. vii ff, but is, in these introductory verses, simply show- 
ing what the high-priest must be, and that Christ answers to the demands of the 
office. It would be out of the line of thought, therefore, to make these words a 
part of the subject, as designating the priest who is taken from among men. But, 
if they are united with the predicate, the question may be asked whether they 
have a more prominent, or a less prominent position. Is this participial clause 
a mere incidental expression, the chief emphasis resting upon what follows ‘va to 
the end of ver. 2: Every high-priest is appointed, etc., taken as he is from among 
men, in order that, etc.? Or does it contain in itself the chief point, which is, as 
it were, only unfolded in the iva clause: Every high-priest is appointed as one 
who is a man, and this to the end that, etc.? The emphatic position of the words 
and the fact that they seem scarcely necessary, if they express only a secondary 
and incidental idea, strongly favor the latter view of the construction. In either 
case, the general meaning is, that the high-priest must be a man, or one who, as 
a man, is able to sympathize with men in their infirmities. 

(6) The yap at the beginning of ver. 1, connects the idea of the necessity of this 
sympathy with the statement, in iv. 14-16, that we have a high-priest who has 
been tempted like ourselves; but this connection is grammatical, rather than the 
necessary logical connection of the main thought. The main thought turns here 
into a new line, of which, as already remarked, iv. 14-16 (like ii. 17, 18) gives 
only a foreshadowing hint.—dvvayuevoc has nearly, if not precisely, the same 
relation to poogépy «.7.2., which Aauavduevoc has to kabiorara, if the latter is 
explained in the second way mentioned above: his appointment as being a man 
is in order that he may offer the sacrifices as one who is able, ete—Ver. 3 is, not 
improbably, best explained, with Liinem., as an independent sentence, containing 
an observation which is incidental, so far as the chief point in discussion in the 
other verses is concerned. : 

(c) That, in vy. 4-6, Christ is declared to have the second of the two qualifica- 
tions mentioned, is admitted by all. With reference to special points in these 
three verses, it may be remarked: 1. That in ver. 5 the writer substitutes for 6 
ede (ver. 4) the sentence 6 Aadgjoac x.7.A. This sentence includes the characteristic 
word used by the author to describe divine utterances and revelations, and also the 
passage cited from the Psalms, which was introduced at the very beginning of the 
first part of the epistle (i. 5); 2. That ver. 6 does not stand in a parallelism with 
ver.5 6. Ver.56 is simply a description of the One who calls Christ to the office of 
high-priest—é Aad#joac with its dependent words being the subject of the verb to 
be supplied from édéface, Ver. 6, on the other hand (see xa¥ac¢), gives the proof 
that 6 Aadgjoac k.7.A., did what is indicated by éd6Eace.—3. From these two facts 
it is to be inferred, that the author wrote his sentences intentionally in this 
way. He designed, with rhetorical force and in an artistic manner, to unite the 
beginning of the second division of his work with the beginning of the first, and 
to call the attention of his readers to the thought, that He who had made Christ 
His agent in introducing the N. T. system, had also made Him His agent in 
carrying it forward. 

(d) In vv. 7-9, Christ is presented as having the first of the two qualifications 
for the high-priestly offiee. That such a presentation is the design of these verses is 
proved by the following considerations:—1. The artistic arrangement of the 


NOTES. 521 


epistle, which is so clearly manifest in all its parts, renders it extremely improb- 
able that, after having formally stated the two things mentioned in vv. 1-4, the 
first one, and the one which had been set forth with greatest fullness, should be 
passed over without notice in the application of the matter to Christ. 2. What 
is said respecting Christ in vv. 7-9, both as to His own experience and as to the 
result of it, is wholly unconnected with the statement of vv. 5, 6; but, on the 
other hand, it accords with what is indicated in vy. 1-3. That in consequence of 
His having gone through the experiences of human weakness and suffering, as 
attendant upon His being a man, He is enabled to be the high-priest for men, is 
the thought of these verses;—that such experience and qualification are essential 
to the office, is the thought of vv. 1-3. 3. There is no satisfactory reason for 
denying this reference to the first verses of the chapter—neither the absence of 
the phrase é&. avtp. AaqufZ. or of the word avipwroc, for the idea is sufficiently 
suggested by the words “in the days of his flesh,” as well as by the other indica- 
tions of human experience ; nor the fact that certain expressions are found which 
remind us of the second chapter, for the high-priestly office, and its work for men, 
find their full significance only as they help men to eternal salvation; nor the 
correspondence in some points with iv. 14-16, for, as has been already intimated, 
that passage is only preparatory to this, and is not determinative of the plan or 
main ideas of this introduction to the second leading division of the letter; nor the 
repetition, in ver. 10, of the words of ver. 6, for this repetition is only for the purpose 
of forming a transition from the introductory passage to the development of the 
first point connected with the exaltation of Christ’s priesthood above the O. T. 
priesthood,—namely, that it is after the Melchisedek order, as contrasted with 
the Aaronic or Levitical. This writer does not turn aside from his line of 
thought without coming back to it again, as Paul does under the influence of some 
new idea or word. He isa rhetorician, rather than an ardent advocate, and he 
cares for the form, as well as for the substance. When he leaves his thought in 
incompleteness, he returns to it again. The plan is never forgotten. But, at the 
same time, he is not slavishly bound to the use of the same words. He moves in 
.the circle of ideas, not of mere expressions, and so he readily brings out a new 
thought, or application of thought, in words kindred to those which hemay have 
already employed elsewhere and for a different purpose. 

(e) The close connection of ver. 7 with vv. 5, 6 by the relative 6¢ may be 
accounted for after the same manner with many other unions of sentences in this 
epistle, and in Paul’s letters. It is a characteristic of epistolary writing to connect 
independent thoughts in this dependent way.—(/) The correct view of the ex- 
pressions referring to Christ’s prayers, ete, seems to be this: that they are 
intended to be descriptive of His whole earthly life, in this regard, but that thev 
are chosen, to a considerable extent, if not altogether, under the influence of the 
story of the scene in Gethsemane. It is improbable that the sole reference, in the 
thought, is to that scene. But that the writer should make the language belong- 
ing to, or suggested by, this decisive hour of Christ’s history serve to represent His 
whole history of suffering, supplication, obedience, is not at all strange or 
unnatural—(g) The view of Liinemann, and the many writers whom he mentions 
as agreeing with him, respecting eicaxovodeic ard tic evAaeiac, is to be adopted. — 
(kh) The use of aitioc in ver. 9, instead of apy7yéce which is found in ii. 10, may, 
not improbably, be due to the fact that the writer has not here in mind the idea 
of leading the way as the first of a great company, but only of cause as connected 


522 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


with the work of the high-priest—(i) The connection of ver. 10 with ver. 3 is 
like that of ver. 1 and ver. 7 with the verses which immediately precede them. 
As to the relation of ver. 10 to the main thought, see under (d) above. 


LYI. Vy. 11-14. 


(a) The reference of oi) (ver. 11)—whether to Melchisedee, or to Christ as priest 
after the order of M., or (as neuter) to the topic of Christ’s Mel. priesthood—is 
uncertain. In any éase, we have the same general purpose in the passage. The 
fact that Christ is the principal subject of the preceding verses, that ver. 10 is 
opened by a participle referring to Him, that it is His doctrine, in its elementary 
and deeper parts, which is mentioned at the beginning of ch. vi., and that His 
correspondence with Melchisedek in the matter of the priesthood is presented in ch. 
vii., may lead to the conclusion that the writer intended to refer, not to Melchisedek, 
and not to the mere topic or proposition, but to what is set forth in the words of 
ver. 10, ae. Christ as high-priest after the Melchis. order. Liinem.’s view, there- 
fore, though not certainly correct, is probably to be adopted —(b) The verb to be 
supplied with zodvd¢e 6 Adyo¢ is, undoubtedly, éor/v, and so the meaning is: we 
have many things to say (R. V.). The strict sense of the words, accordingly, is 
that which Liinem. gives: “the author has abundant material for discoursing on 
the subject announced.” When connected with the following phrase ducepuhvevtog 
Aéyew, however, it is not impossible that, along with this primary and proper 
meaning, the words are intended to suggest that the unfolding of the subject, 
being duoepujvevroc, requires for the readers an extended presentation. This 
possibility is suggested, also, by the éze which follows, if this word, as may be 
intimated by the form of the sentence, is to be connected in thought with the 
whole clause rep? ob... . Aéyerx.—(c) The verb yeyévare, like many other words 
and statements in the epistle, implies that the readers were falling back, rather 
than pressing forward in their Christian life—(d) On the possibilities of the con- 
struction of tov diddoxerv and twa (ver. 12), see Buttm.pp. 260, 268, Winer p. 
339, and Liinem.’s note on 1 Thess. iv. 9, to which he himself refers in his remarks 
on the present verse. That the use of the infinitiye active, in such a case, with- 
out the supply of a new subject, and instead of the infinitive passive, is possible, 
may, perhaps, be admitted—though, to say the least, it seems questionable. But 
that it is improbable in a sentence which can be otherivise explained satisfactorily, 
may be safely affirmed. The present sentence, however, can not only be inter- 
preted without serious difficulty, by making t-va the subject of ypd@ecv, but, if this 
construction is adopted, the meaning accords with what we must believe the writer 
to have intended. It is scarcely conceivable that he meant to say, that the readers 
had become so dull and sluggish in all their Christian understanding as not to 
know whether repentance and faith were fundamental and elementary doctrines. 
There is certainly nothing in the context which implies this. The context 
intimates only that they needed milk, i. e., instruction in the elementary things, 
(not information as to whether these things were elementary or not) (vv. 12 8, 13), 
and that they should move beyond these things to those which were higher, or 
should open their minds to the truth so as to receive and understand a discourse 
on the higher things (vi. 1 ff). There can be little doubt, therefore, that tia is 
the indefinite pronoun, not the interrogative—(e) The explanation given by 
Liinem. of the sequence of thought in vy. 12 , 13, shows that it is not necessary 


. 


NOTES. F034 


to suppose, that the author sacrificed the sense to the word-arrangement in the 
order of the clauses of vv. 13, 14. But it can hardly be doubted that Bleek is 
correct in saying, that the reverse order would have carried forward the thought 
more simply and naturally. Ver. 120 is only a renewed expression, in a figurative 
way, of what it is involved in 12 a. The object of vv. 13, 14 is to prove—not so 
much that the one who partakes of, or needs, milk, rather than solid food, is in 
want of instruction—as that the one who is inexperienced in the word of righte- 
ousness, being v#tvo¢ and not TéAevoc, requires milk i.e. elementary teaching. Not 
improbably, the writer places the yetéyov yadaxrog first, under the influence of his 
tendency towards rhetorical word-arrangement.—(f) Grimm (Lex. N. T.) 
regards Adyo¢ T7¢ dikaoovvyc as equivalent to doctrina de modo quo homo conditionem 
deo probatam consequatur, giving thus a general meaning to dix, This is one of the 
instances in which this writer may intend to use the word in the distinctively 
Pauline sense. But that he does have this intention cannot be confidently 
affirmed. The only case where the Pauline idea is beyond doubt is xi. 7. Grimm 
says of Baovdede dcxacoovvye in vil. 2—the interpretation of the name of Melchisedek— 
that it means rer, qui ipse deo probatur et cives suos deo probatos reddit. The fact 
that the verses of ch. vii. and those here used are both connected with the allusion 
to Melchisedek renders it not improbable that the writer's idea of righteousness 
in the two cases was the same; but the separation of the two verses by the sixth 
chapter, and the fact that the word is not immediately joined with what is said of 
Christ’s Mel. priesthood, make it somewhat doubtful. The most that can be 
stated with confidence is, that Aoy. dvx., as here used, may mean the doctrine of 
righteousness by faith, and may, also, mean the doctrine of righteousness in the more 
general signification of the word.—( gy) The reference of the thought of the 
passage to doctrine and teaching shows that xadovd te Kai xaxod has the same 
reference. The same fact, also, shows that aic#T7p1a means the perceptive 
faculties, or, as Alf., says, the inner organs of the soul. 

(h) This passage (vv. 11-14) is evidently a mere digression and parenthesis, as 
related to the direct development of the thought suggested in ver. 10, and carried 
on in ch. vii. It is however, a digression which is very easily and naturally 
made. Ch. vi. is introduced in connection with the last part of this passage, i. e., 
the present vyriétn¢ of the readers, when they ought to be téAevor, But it is not 
a part of the same parenthesis. It is, on the other hand, the hortatory passage 
belonging to this new sub-section of the epistle, which is introduced before the 
argumentative part of the section—instead of after it, as in other cases—because it 
was so readily suggested to the writer’s mind by the closing verses of ch. v. 


524 THE EPISTLE TC THE HEBREWS. 


CHAPTER VI. 


Ver. 2. Instead of the Recepta d:day%¢, Lachm. reads dcdaxqv. But the 
accusative has the support only of B and the Latin translation in D (doctrinam), 
and is a mere transcriber’s error.—Ver. 3. Elz.: tocjooper, after BK L y, It. 
Vulg. Basm. Copt. Syr. utr. Ambrose. Retained by Lachm. Tisch. and Bloomfield. 
Defended also by Reiche. But as more original, on account of the symmetry 
with gepoueda, ver. 1, appears the conjunctive to1yower, already commended 
to notice by Griesbach ; approved by Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford. It is attested 
by the strong authority of A C D E, 23,31, 39, al. mult., Arm. Chrys. (codd.) 
Theodoret (comment.), Oecum. Damase.—Ver. 7. éx’ avti¢] B** 213, 219** al. : 
ém’ avrg, Alteration in favor of the more prevailing linguistic usage—To the 
Recepta ToAAakic Epyopmevov, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford have 
preferred the order épyépuevov moddakec. The external accrediting is for 
both substantially equal. The Recepta is attested by A C K L, Vulg.; Lach- 
mann’s reading by B D E xy, 37, 116, ai., It. Syr. utr. Copt. al. But in favor of 
the originality of the latter pleads the greater euphony, for which the author 
is wont to show a predilection—Ver. 9. The mode of writing «peiccova, 
followed by Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, al., after the precedent given 
by the Edd. Complut. and Plantin., instead of the Recepia xpeittova, is here 
required by A BC D*** (E?) L yx, al. Otherwise, i. 4, vii. 7, and frequently. -= 
Ver. 10. kat tie ayaryc] Elz. Matthaei: cal tov Kétov THe Gyanyne. But rov 
xémov is wantinggin A BC D* E* y, 6, 31, 47, al., Syt. utr. Erp. Basm. Aeth. 
Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ., with Chrys. (twice) Antioch. Theoph. Jerome. Already 
condemned by Beza, Mill, Bengel, al. Rightly deleted by Griesb. Knapp, 
Lachm. Seholz, Tisch. Alford, Reiche, and others. Gloss from 1 Thess. i. 3.— 
Ver. 14. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, Reiche: 7 «4». 
Instead thereof, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford have ei «4v. The latter, 
approved also by Bleek and others, is, on account of the weighty authority of 
A B(C L**: e uf) D(D corr.: € 7) Ex, 17, 28, al., Didym. Damase. Vulg. It. 
Ambrose. Bede (: nisi), to be looked upon as the original reading. 7 “yy isa 
later conversion of the non-Greek expression of the LX X. into Greek.—Ver. 
16. dvdpuror pév yap] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloom- 
field, and Alford. But j#év is wanting in A B D* x, 47, 52, Cyril. Rightly 
rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8.—Ver. 18. dev] Bleek and Tisch. 8, 
after A C y*, 17, 52, Cyril, Didym. Chrys. al.: tov dedv.—Ver. 19. Instead of 
the Recepta ao¢aA7, which is confirmed also by the Codex Sinaiticus, Lachm., in 
the stereotype edition, writes, after A C D*: aogad4v (so also Tisch. 7),in the 
larger edition: dogaA#v, But the form is hardly to be justified. Yet comp. 
Winer, p. 64 [E. T. 66]. 


Vy. 1-3. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note LVIT., pages 549, 550.] It is disputed 
whether in these verses the author carries out his purpose of advancing, 


CHAP. VI. 1-3. 525 
with the pretermission of the Christian elementary instruction, to objects 
of deeper Christian knowledge ; or whether there is contained in the same 
a summons to the readers, no longer to cling to the doctrines of the first 
principles of Christianity, but to strive to reach beyond them and attain 
to Christian maturity and perfection.!. The former supposition is favored 
by Primasius, Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pisca- 
tor, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Peirce, Cramer, 
Michaelis, Morus, Storr, Abresch, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, 
Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Reiche (Comment. Crit. p. 86 sqq.) 
Conybeare, Reuss, M’Caul, Hofmann (Komm. p. 231), and many others; 
the latter, on the other hand, by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Genna- 
dius (in Oecumenius), Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Calvin, Clarius, 
Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schrift- 
bew. I. p. 6386, 2 Aufl.), Moll, and others. [LVII a.] The connection with 
the preceding and following context decides against the first acceptation 
and in favor of the second. The author has just now charged the readers 
with dullness, and complained that they are still children in Christian un- 
derstanding. It is not possible, therefore, that he should now continue in 
the strain: “on that account he purposes, passing over the doctrines of 
the initial stage, to treat in his address of objects of higher, profounder 
Christian knowledge ;”” whereas, on the other hand, the exhortation to 
ascend to a higher stage fittingly links itself to the complaint of the lower 
standpoint of the readers, which still continues unchanged notwithstand- 
ing all legitimate expectation to the contrary. No wonder, then, that ex- 
positors have been forced, in connection with the first-named explanation, 
to have recourse to arbitrary interpretations of the d:6, vi. 1; either in 
completing the idea, as Grotius, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, and others, 


1Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des He- 
“brderbr. p. 781 f.), to whom Maier, Kluge, 
Kurtz,and Woerner have given in their adhe- 
sion, have thought to be able to escape the 
stringency of the above either... or. 

They will have us recognize the one to the 
non-exclusion of the other, in that they find 
expressed at the same time the exhortation 
to the readers to strive after the teAevdrys, 
and the design of the writer to lead forward 
the readers to the reAecorns. But this (comp. 
also Reiche, Comment. Crit. p. 37, note 2) is an 
unnatural, absolutely impossible assumption. 
The announcement of the author’s design to 
advance to a more difficult section of his dis- 
quisition, and the exhortation to the endeavor 
after Christian maturity addressed to others, 
are two so mutually irreconcilable declara- 
tions, as not possibly to admit of being com- 
pressed at the same time into the $épec@ac 
emt, ver. 1, and rovro wocecy, ver. 3. Just as 
little can at the same time be indicated by 
teAeoTns, ver. 1, the condition of ripe age in 
Christianity, and the Christian teaching 


activity of another in reference to higher 
things. If, therefore, the author had designed 
to express both together,—alike an incite- 
ment of the readers, as also the carrying out 
of his own intention,—he must necessarily 
have brought under review each one sepa- 
rately, i. e. first the one and then the other. 
In addition to this, there is the further con- 
sideration that the view of Delitzsch and 
Riehm bears the character of half measures. 
For they do not even venture to push it to a 
consistent conclusion, in that surely the same 
two-sidedness of reference which attaches to 
the principal verb depwpueba (and to the todto 
tmoujowmev Which resumes the thought of the 
same), must also attach to the participles 
adévres and xaraBadAdpmevor; but as it is, the 
participles are supposed to haye gramma- 
tically, it is true, the same two-sided subject 
as the principal verbs; logically, on the other 
hand, to refer preponderantly (i. e. according 
to the preceding remark in Delitzsch, p. 209, 
init.: exclusively) to the author! 


526 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


by: “therefore, because surely rio one of you wishes to remain a v@ruoc,” 
—which, however, as the middle term, must have been expressly added, 
since no reader could divine this from that which precedes,—or in refer- 
ring it, as Schlichting and Reuss, to the first words of v.11: repi ob rodi¢ 
juiv 6 Abyoc Kai SvcepuAvertoc Aéyerv, and regarding all that intervenes in the 
light of remarks appended by way of parenthesis,—which, nevertheless, 
is to be rejected, even on account of the intimate connection of ducepujver- 
roc Aéyev, V. 11, with the following éze? «.7.4.,—or finally, what is lexically 
impossible, denying to it a causal signification, and then translating it 
either, as Morus, by “yet” (doch), or, as Zachariae, by “ nevertheless ” 
(indessen), or as Abresch, by vero, enimvero.—But no less does the coherence 
with that which follows decide against the first interpretation and in favor 
of the second. For it is quite comprehensible how the reason given, ver. 4 
ff.,should be able to lend emphasis to a preceding exhortation, but not how 
the declaration of the author, that he now intended to pass over to more 
difficult, more profound themes for instruction, should be explained 
thereby. (See on vv. 4-6.) In agévrec there lies no decisive ground in 
favor of either the one or the other view (against de Wette, Bisping, and 
others), and éx? ri reAeéryta, as also Veuédwov xataBadrAduevor, is More rele- 
vant to the case of the readers than to that of the author (vide infra).— 
Ai] [LVII b 1.] therefore, i. e. since the solid food is suited only to réAevoe, 
ye, however, do not yet belong to the number of the réAecoe.—agvévar] is not 
only employed by orators and historians to indicate that they intend to pass 
over some subject or leave it unmentioned,! but serves with equal fre- 
quency to denote the leaving unnoticed or leaving aside of an object in 
actual conduct.? In our passage it is the leaving aside of the lesser, in 
order to reach beyond it and attain to the higher. Entirely akin to the 
aguévac Tov THE apY# Tov Xpiorov Adyov is that which Paul, Phil. iii. 14, denotes 
as ériaySaveodar Ta briow. As in the passagenamed Paul speaks of a for- 
getting of that already attained upon the path of Christian perfection, 
only with.a glance at the goal as yet unattained, and not in an absolute 
sense,—as though he would in reality deny all actual significance to that 
which was already attained,—quite so does the author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews stir up the readers to an ag:évar rov THe apy TOU Xpiorov Adyov, 
only inasmuch as they are called to rise, beyond that which forms a mere 
preliminary stage, to something higher, without in any way implying 
thereby that the rie apyie tov Xprorod Adyoc, which certainly, as a base pre- 
supposed as already present, remains necessary for all subsequent build- 
ing, should at all cease to be their possession. The objection, that agévre¢ 
cannot be referred to the readers, because instead of a leaving aside (let- 
ting go) a holding fast or renewing of the ric apyne ToD Xpiotov Adyoc must 
rather be demanded as a means for attaining to the reAevéryc, has therefore 
no force.—rov rie apyye Tod Xpiorov Adyov] the word of the beginning concern- 


1Comp. e. g. Demosth. de Falsa Legat. p. 433, Luke y. 11: adévtes mavta HKodovOnoay avT@; 
28: mavra Ta dAAa adeis, & TavTEs Dyes LoTE Epw. Eurip. Androm. 393: aAAa Thy apxnv ageis 
2Comp. e.g. Mark vii. 8: apévres Thy EvToAny mpos Thy TedevTHV, VoTEpayv ovaav, Hépy- 
Tov Oeov Kpateite THY Tapadoow TaY avOpwrTwr ; 3Comp. Calvin: Jubet autem omitti ejus- 


CHAP. VI. 1-3. 527 
ing Christ, i. e. the Christian doctrine in its first rudiments or elements. 
tae apxiye locks together with ro» Aéyov into a single notion, and upon 
this total-notion tov Xpcorot depends. The whole expression, however, 
amounts to the same thing as was before (vy. 12) denoted by ra crovyeia re 
apXi¢ TOV Aoyiwv Tov Veov.—7 Tedev6ryc] In Connection with our apprehension 
of vv. 1-8, determines itself naturally as perfection, i.e. manhood and 
maturity in Christianity, and that in an intellectual respect, not in an 
ethical or practical one, in which latter sense the expression has been 
accepted—arbitrarily, because opposed to the connection with y. 11-14— 
by Chrysostom (Sio¢ apictoc).! Those who find in vv. 1-3 a statement of 
the author concerning his intention, must naturally understand rf eA ec 6- 
tne of the perfection of doctrine, 7. e. of the deeper disclosures with regard 
to Christianity. But this is, at all events, a forced interpretation of the 
simple notion of the word, such as neither corresponds to the usage in 
other cases (comp. Col. 11. 14), nor in our passage appears in keeping with 
the context. For, since immediately before the discourse was of 7 éAecor 
in opposition to vgmco1, so here only the condition of the ré%ecoe can 
consistently with nature be the meaning of the reAevérye. Had the 
author intended the perfection of doctrine, he must at least have written 
émi ta tov tedeiwv instead of émi tyv TeAeéty7Ta; for only in this way 
would he have acquired a notion corresponding to the preceding 7 orepea 
tpody, V. 14.—gepdueda] The author includes himself in the exhortation 
(cf. iv. 14, al.), and thereby tempers the same. ¢épeodac éxi tu, to be 
carried away to something, to strive with zeal after something.—vepédcov Kara- 
Baadrecda] a formula fully current in later Greek style (Dionys. Halicarn. iii. 
69; Josephus, Antiq. xi. 4. 4, al. [whereas Paul and Luke employ rvdévaz, 1 
Cor. iii. 10; Luke vi. 48, xiv. 29]), to denote the laying of the foundation. 
Even on account of the usualness of this mode of speech, it is quite a 
misapprehension of the meaning when Ebrard would here vindicate for 
‘kataBadAeota the signification : “demolish.” But also the position of the 
word decides against this, since kataBaAAémevo. must have its place be- 
fore Geuédov, whereas the placing of it after shows that the emphasis must 
fall upon Se éAcov, not upon the verb; GeuéAcov thus stands in antithesis 
to the following reAedéryra. The participial clause: uy raacv Gewédrcrov 
cata. x.t.4., accordingly forms an elucidation to agévre¢ rdv tHe apyAe ToD 
Xpicrov Adyov.—The genitive weravoiac, etc., indicates the material with 
which the foundation is laid, and, indeed, each two of the instances named 
belong together, so that three pairs of the first principles of Christianity 
are enumerated. The article before the single substantives is omitted 
throughout; not, as BOhme and Bleek suppose, out of a consideration for 


modi rudimenta, non quod eorum oblivisci 
unquam debeant fideles, sed quia in illis 
minime est haerendum. Quod melius patet 
ex fundamenti similitudine, quae mox sequi- 
tur. Nam in exstruenda domo nunquam a 
fundamento discedere oportet; in eo tamen 
jaciendo semper laborare ridiculum. 
1Gennadius (xpyotH moActeia kai THs TigTEws 


aéia), Photius () év tats apetais mooxo7y, 7 
Tov OArtWewy Kal Swwyn@v Kal TeLpagmeV V70- 
povn), Occumenius (7 Tav Epywv drdogodpia), 
Clarius (non solum superioris illius de Christo 
theologiae comprehensio, quantum homini 
fas est, verum etiam profectus in virtutes et 
afflictionum persecutionumque tolerantia), 
and others. 


528 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

the rhythm, lest otherwise the articles should too greatly accumulate, but 
because the sense is: with things such as wetdvoca, etc.—Further, as sub- 
ject in xataBad2duevor We have to regard the readers of the epistle (not the 
author), because the same subject is presupposed for the peravora and the 
Oeuériov KataBaarecda; but the wetadvocra, which cannot denote the doctrine 
of the change of mind,—since otherwise, as with the words in ver. 2, the 
addition of ddayy could not have been wanting,—but expresses the act 
of the change of mind itself, beyond doubt relates to the readers of the 
letter, not to the author.—Not anew are the readers to lay the foundation by 
petavowa ard vexpov épywv and rioric éxi Jedv; since this foundation has with 
them already been laid, it is now thus only a question of continuing to 
build upon the foundation laid. Not in such wise are they accordingly to 
behave, that the primary requirement of turning from the épya vexpé and 
having ziorce towards God, must ever afresh be made with regard to them. 
—The construction wetdvora ard, as with peravoeiv, Acts viii. 22; LXX. 
Jer. vill. 6.—a7d vexpov épyov] [LVI b 2.] By vexpdé the works are not 
characterized as sinful, and by sin occasioning death (Piscator, Schlichting, 
Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Peirce, Abresch, Bisping, Stuart, and others), 
nor as defiling, as according to the law of Moses contact with a dead body 
defiled (Michaelis, al.), but as in themselves vain and fruitless [see on ix. 14]. 
Perhaps the author has—what is on no sufficient grounds contested by R. 
K6stlin (Theol. Jahrbb. von Baur und Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 469 ff., Remark), 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 568), and Kurtz—before his. mind the 
service of works under the Mosaic law, from which the readers had not 
yet been able to free themselves. A contradiction, as Riehm supposes 
(I. c. p. 835 f.), of the fact recognized, p. 16, that xiore with the author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews does not, as with Paul, involve an opposition 
to the véuoc andethe épya véuov, lies not in this expression. For neither in 
our passage is mention made of vexpa épya-in relation to zioric, but only in 
relation to-the factor of the eravoa which precedes the riotie.—xat ricrews 
éxt Sed]. The positive reverse side to the negative peravoiac ad vexpav Epywr. 
The ideas conveyed by the yeravoeiv and moretew, the perévora and the riorie, 
likewise associated with each other, Mark i. 15;. Acts xx. 21. These words, 
however, are to be understood, as Abresch, Bleek, and others rightly insist, 
in accordance with the signification, which the author is otherwise wont 
to attach to riotic, of the believing confidence in God, as the one who in 
part has already fulfilled the promises of salvation given in the person 
of Jesus Christ, in part will yet completely fulfill’ them. 

Ver. 2. Bartionov didayzc] [LVII b 3.] We have not to divide by a 
comma, with Cajetan, Luther, Hyperius, Sykes, Semler, Morus, Heinrichs, 
Schulz, de Wette, Conybeare, and others [after the Syriac], in such wise 
that Barrionot and didayf are each separately enumerated as a particular 
subject for elementary instruction in Christianity. 4day7z must in this 
case mean.the elementary instruction in Christianity connected with 
baptism, imparted either before or after the same. But since, at the close 
of the verse, the dvdoracic vexpov and the xpiva aiévov are mentioned, 
while the treatment of these subjects for teaching belonged equally to the 


CHAP. “Vis. 529 
first stage of instruction in Christianity, it is not easy to perceive why, in 
addition to that diday4, these two points, presupposed in the same, should 
be brought into special relief by the author. Then there is the considera- 
tion that all the particulars which are mentioned before and after as con- 
stituent parts of the @euédwov, are designated by a double expression. 
Seeing the care bestowed by the author upon the symmetrical proportions 
of his discourse, we should therefore naturally be led to regard Bazticuév 
didayy¢ as a corresponding double expression. But even as thus appre- 
hended the expression is capable of a twofold explanation. The question, 
namely, is whetber the author is speaking of Bamrciopoi didayaje or of a 
In the first case baptisms with a view to doctrine are 
meant, in the second instruction concerning baptisms. In the first accepta- 
tion the term is taken by Bengel, Michaelis, Maier, Kurtz, as also Winer, 
p. 181 [E. T. 192] (less decidedly, 5 Aufl. p. 217); in the last, by Bleek and 
the majority. Against the first view pleads, on the one hand, the fact that 
the addition diday7¢ would be something too little characteristic, almost 
unmeaning, since a Christian baptism, not preceded, accompanied, or 
followed by instruction in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, 
would be something inconceivable; on the other hand, that in this way 
the erroneous secondary meaning would arise, that there were, in addition 
to the Christian baptisms with a view to doctrine, also other Christian 
baptisms. We follow, therefore, the second mode of interpretation. In 
connection with this the plural Barrio still presents some difficulty. 
Gerhard, Dorscheus, Ernesti, M’Lean, Stuart, and others arbitrarily set 
aside this difficulty, in that they suppose just the plural to be placed for 
the singular. But neither is the plural to be explained by the assumption 
that respect is had to the proneness of the Hebrews for often repeating 
the Christian baptism, in conformity with the many farriouoi in Judaism,} 
or, at the same time, to the outward and inner baptism.? Just as little by 
the supposition that reference is made to a plurality of baptismal candi- 
dates or baptismal acts,? or to a repeated immersing of the candidate. 
Most in its favor has the opinion of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schétt- 
gen, Wolf, and others;* namely, that the author is thinking not so much 
of Christian baptism in itself, or exclusively, as along with it at the same 
time of the relation of the same to the Jewish lustrations, and perhaps 
also to the baptism of John. This view appears at least to acquire a 
point of support from ix. 10, according to which the readers still continued 
to esteem the washings enjoined by the Mosaic law as of importance for 
Christians too. Yet it seems to be precarious, with Jac. Cappellus, Bleek, 
and others, to urge in favor of this acceptation the distinction that in the 
N. T. only Baxriopva is used for Christian baptism in the proper sense of 


Baxtiopov didayy. 


1Cecumenius, Theophylact. 

2Grotius, Whitby, Braun, Brochmann; 
Reuss: la différence du baptéme d’eau et du 
baptéme d’esprit. 

%Theodoret, Primasius, Beza, Er. Schmid, 
Owen, Heinrichs, al. 


34 


4In which more recently also Bohme, Kui- 
noel, Klee, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloom- 
field, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrderbr. p. 724), Alford, anc Moll have 
concurred. 


530 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the term, Bazrioudc, on the other hand, being in the N. T. a word of wider 
signification (ix. 10; Mark vii. 4); precarious, because the expression 
Barvioua not occurring at all with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
[as also Josephus designates the rite of John only by Barrioudc, the action 
by Barrio, Antig. xvi. 5. 2], with regard to his usage in this respect thus 
nothing can be determined.—In close inner connection with the Bazrco- 
wot stands the érideore yvecpov. As therefore the readers ought no 
longer to be in need of teaching concerning the nature of the former 
(and concerning its pre-eminence over the kindred institutions of Judaism), 
so was it also to be reasonably expected that they should experience a 
necessity for being instructed concerning the-nature of the latter (and 
concerning the eminent blessings which attend thereon). The reference 
is to that laying on of hands by which those previously baptized were 
fully received into the communion, and through which the reception of 
the Holy Ghost was wont to be vouchsafed to them. Comp. Acts vili. 17 
ff., xix. 6. From this close inner connectedness of the érideore yerpov 
with the Barricvoi results that, also as regards the external arrangement 
of words, the genitive éxvdécewc does not depend immediately upon 
Geuérvov, but like Barticvov upon didayijc¢. But, moreover, even the fol- 
lowing genitives, dvactdcewc and kpivaroc, are, as rightly apprehended 
by Storr, BOhme, Ebrard, Bisping,’ Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and Woerner, 
governed by didayye. For not by the resurrection of the dead, and the 
everlasting judgment itself, since these facts will first unfold themselves in 
the future, but only by the doctrine thereof can the foundation be laid in 
Christianity. It would, however, be arbitrary to assign to the words 
avdaoraoie and xpiva in themselves a signification which they can only have 
in combination with the foregoing d:day%¢. A’ grammatical harshness 
(de Wette) is not to be discovered in this construction, on account of the 
close connection of the last clauses by means of re and te . . . kai; any 
more than de Wette is right in regarding Parrioyov didayyc, in the mode 
of interpretation above ‘followed, as an unnatural trajection without an 
example in the writings of our author; for Barripudv is preposed because 
the emphasis rests on that word, and an analogon in our epistle is already 
afforded by the xvetuatog dyiov pepicpoic, li. 4.—avactdceie Te vexpov Kai 
kpiuatoc aiwviov] Two dogmas already belonging to the Jewish theology, 
which obtained. by means of Christianity only their more definite, con- 
crete signification. The expression in both ‘these clauses is used quite 
generally. We have therefore no warrant for limiting, with Estius, 


1Wrongly, however, is it supposed by 


tionis, quae doctrina est baptismi et impo- 
Bisping (as before his time by Gennadius in 


sitionis manuum ... Nisi enim_appositive 


Oecumenius, and Klee) that petavotas and 
migtews, ver. 1, are already dependent upon 
6dax7ns.—Just as wrongly would Calvin, who 
is followed by Piscator and Owen, enclose 
Bartiopav didaxijs, emBerews Te xe_pav within 
a parenthesis, “ut sit appositio ... hoe sensu. 
Non jacientes rursus fundamentum poeniten- 


tiae, fidei in Deum, mortuorum resurrec- _ 


legas, hoe erit absurdi, quod bis idem repetet. 
Quae enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi 
quam hie recenset de fide in Deum, de 
poenitentia et de judicio ac similibus?”— 
Both views are deprived of their support by 
the reflection that weravora and miotts, ver. 1, 
denote not a doctrine, but an act [against 
Stuart]. 


CHAP. VI. 3. 531 


Schlichting, Schéttgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and others, the advdoaracie 
to the godly, the «piua to the ungodly. On the contrary, both have 
reference to the pious or believers, and the ungodly or unbelievers in 
common, 

Ver. 3. Repetition of the exhortation, ver. 1, in order immediately to 
give thereto so much the greater emphasis by attaching the warning, ver. 
4 ff—xai roito rovjowpev] [LVI b 4.] just this let ws do—rovro] sc. rd éxi 
tay TehebtyTa dépecda, ver.1.'_ To rovro we cannot supplement from the 
participial clause, ver. 1: 70 @euédcoy nataBadrrcoda, as was done, on the 
presupposition of the reading rovjoouev, by Jac. Cappellus (who, however, 
besides this gives also the true reference, and comes to no decision), 
Schlichting, Grotius, Dorscheus, Wittich, Limborch, Calmet, Zachariae, 
Storr, Abresch, and is still done by Hofmann, as it is also regarded by Tho- 
luck as possible; in such wise that there should issue the sense: this also, 
namely, the laying of the foundation, the author will do, se. at another 
and more favorable time, if God permit. For—apart from the unsuit- 
ability of the sense resulting, according to which the author would declare 
his intention of treating the more difficult earlier than the more easy, 
which latter surely contains the preliminary condition for the under- 
standing of the former—against such supplementing the fact is decisive, 
that the “# in connection with karaBaAdduevor, ver. 1, would be arbitrarily 
set aside; against the apprehending in this sense, the fact that for the 
expression of such a meaning oujoouev dé Kat tovro must have been 
written.—édvrep éitpéxy 6 Oedc] provided that God permits it (1 Cor. xvi. 7), 
inasmuch, namely, as all things, even the carrying into effect of good 
resolutions, are subordinated to the higher decree of God. Incompre- 
hensible, therefore, is the assertion of de Wette, who has therein followed 
Abresch, that the addition édvrep «7.4. is plainly irreconcilable “with the 
taking of our verse in the sense of a demand.” For the supposition, that 
in this case “the encouraging belief in God’s gracious assistance ” must 
be expressed, is an altogether erroneous assumption, since the author in 
the present passage is by no means aiming at the consolation of the 
readers, but, on the contrary—as is shown by vy. 4-8—at the alarming of 
them. To an encouraging and pointing to God’s gracious help the 
discourse first advances, vv. 9, 10. 

Vy. 4-8. [On Vv. 4-8, see Note LVIIL., pages 550, 551.] Warning enforce- 
ment of the foregoing exhortation, by dwelling on the impossibility of 
leading back Christians who have already experienced the abundant 
blessing of Christianity, and for all that have fallen away again from the 
same, anew to a state of grace. [LVIII a.] Very appropriately (against 
de Wette) does this warning justification attach itself to the preceding 
demand; since the readers were not merely still far from the redevdrn¢ in 
Christianity, but were, moreover, upon the way of entirely falling off 
again from Christianity. Comp. especially x. 25-81. In order, therefore, 





1Theodoret; avti tov omovddcwev, emiOuunowmer, mavta movov vmép THs TeAELdTNTOS 
aoracwpu.c8a, 


532 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


to deter them from such contemplated apostasy, there is very fitly set 
before the eyes of the readers the magnitude of the culpability which the 
completed apostasy would involve, and the terrible nature of the divine 
punitive judgment which it would entail—In connection with the other 
view, that a declaration of the purpose of the author is contained in vv. 
1-3, the connection of thought would be: Passing over the subjects of cate- 
chumenical instruction in Christianity, I shall apply myself to the subjects 
of deeper Christian knowledge. For it is surely impossible to convert 
anew Christians who have already been enlightened, and then have fallen 
away again. By the fruitlessness of enlarging on the initial doctrines, 
therefore, the author would justify his resolution. But one does not per- 
ceive the relevancy of this statement to the case of the readers. For since 
a preparatory transition, such as is afforded by the paraenetic gepayeda, 
ver. 1. and rovjoouev, ver. 3,—in that the endeavor after Christian perfec- 
tion necessarily includes the putting away of all that is opposed to it, thus 
also of the inclination to apostasy,—would then be entirely wanting, on 
the contrary, the declaration of the purpose of the author would connect 
itself with the censure expressed, v. 11-14; in this way the explanation 
of this resolution must be found in the presupposition either that the 
readers already actually belonged to the number of the rapazeoévrec, or 
else that, since they must already be reckoned among the ré%e.o1, what 
is said admits of no application to them. In the first case, however, the 
author would represent his own undertaking, for the benefit of such 
readers to pass over to the higher subjects of teaching, as a fruitless one; 
in the last case, having already just before blamed the readers for their 
varétnc, Would have fallen into self-contradiction. 

Ver. 4. Tap] goes back to the last main utterance,—thus to rtoiro rovjou- 
pev, ver. 8, and*by means thereof to éxt tiv rerevdryTa gepdpeda, ver. 1, not to 
uy waAw Senédiov kataBarAduevor, ver. 1, nor yet to édvrep énitpéry 6 Bebe, 
ver. 3,? still less, at the same time, to édvrep émitpéty 6 Bebo and py radaw 
SeuéA. KataB.i—adivatov] it is impossible. The import of the expression is 
absolute; and to weaken it into “ difficile est,” * according to which we 

should have to suppose a rhetorical exaggeration, is an act of caprice. 
- Nor are we justified in seeking to obtain a softening of the declaration, as 
is done by Er. Schmid, Clericus, Limborch, Schéttgen, Bengel, Cramer, 
Baumgarten, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bloomfield (comp. already Ambrose, de ° 
Poenit. ii. 3), by urging the force of the infin. active avakacvifecy as pointing 
to human activity, and thus, with a reference to Matt. xix. 26, making the 
impossibility to exist only on the part of men, not on the part of God. 
For only the impossibility of the avaxacyifecv in itself is accentuated, 
without respect to the person by whom it must otherwise be effected. 
Instead of the infinitive active, therefore, the infinitive passive dvaxacviC- 
coda: might have been chosen by the author without affecting the 


1 Whitby, de Wette, Bloomfield, Conybeare. 4So, after the example of the Latin trans- 


2Piscator, Abresch, Delitasch, Kurtz, Hof- lation in D and E: Ribera, Corn. a Lapide, 
mann, Woerner. Clerieus, Limborech, Storr, Heinrichs, Kui- 


*schlichting. noel, and others. 


CHAP. vi. 4. 533 


sense.—rov¢ amaf .. . aid@voc, ver. 5] characterizing of such as have not 
only become Christians, but also have already experienced the plenitude 
of blessing conferred upon Christians.—rod¢ axat goticdevtac] those who 
were once illumined (x. 32), i.e. had already, through the preaching of the 
gospel, been made participants of the light of the knowledge (sc. of Chris- 
tianity as the perfect religion). As regards the thought, the same thing 
is said by werd 70 AaBeiv tiv éxiyrwow tH¢ adAndeiac, X. 26.—araé belongs, as 
to gwriodévrac, so also to the three following participles (against Hofmann), 
and finds its opposition in wd/cr, ver. 6. It does not signify “plene” or 
_“perfecte” (Wolf), nor does it denote an act which admits of no repeti- 
tion (Delitzsch) ; contains, however, the implication, that the once ought 
to have sufficed and satisfied. Comp. [ix. 26] x.2; Jude 3.—¢wrilecv 
viva, [LVIII 8.] of the spiritual enlightenment effected by teaching, is 
purely Hellenistic.'—yevoapévoug te tH¢ dupeac tHe éxovpaviov] and have tasted 
the heavenly gift. yevecdai tevoc, to taste or receive a savor of a thing, 
figurative indication of perception by one’s own experience. See on ii. 9. 
The construction of the verb with the genitive (instead of being with the 
accusative, as ver. 5) does not justify us, with many strict Reformed 
expositors, in finding a mere “ gustare extremis labris ” in the expression. 
Besides, such an interpretation would be in conflict with the design of the 
writer, since it cannot be within his intention to represent the culpability 
of the persons in question as small; he must, on the contrary, aim at 
bringing out the same in all its magnitude.—By dwped éxovpavioc, Pri- 
masius, Haymo, Estius, Michaelis, Semler, and others understand the 
Lord’s Supper ; Owen, Calmet, Ernesti, Whitby, M’Lean, Bloomfield, the 
Holy Ghost (against which the following special mention of the same is 
decisive); Klee, regeneration in general, in contradistinction from the 
special communication of the Spirit in baptism; M’Caul, “the persuasion of 
the eternal life, the ydapicua tov Seoi, Rom. vi. 23;” Hofmann, righteous- 
ness ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, 
Paraphrase ; Cameron, Hammond, Rambach, Ebrard, Maier, the forgive- 
ness of sins; Justinian, Schlichting, Grotius, the peace of mind arising from 
forgiveness; Pareus, faith; Seb. Schmidt, Dorscheus, Peirce, Bengel, 
Carpzov, Cramer, Bisping, and others, Christ ; Morus, Heinrichs, B6hme, 
Kuinoel, Stuart, Stengel, and others, the Christian religion or the gospel; 
Abresch, Bleek, the enlightenment imparted to men through the preaching 
of the gospel, or the heavenly light itself, which effects the enlightenment, 
and by means thereof communicates itself to men. Inasmuch as re 
points to a close connection between the second clause and the first, and 
the emphasis rests upon the.foregoing yevoapévovc, 4 doped is at any 
rate to be taken quite generally. Most naturally, therefore, shall we 
think in general of the gift of grace, i.e. of the abundant grace of Chris- 
tianity. It is called heavenly, inasmuch as Christ was sent forth from 
heaven in order to communicate it, and heaven is the scene of its full 
realization.—kai petéyoue yevydévtac mvebuatoc dyiov] and were made par- 


1Comp. Eph. iii. 9; John i.9; LXX. Ps. exix. 130; 2 Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, aé. 


534 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


takers of the Holy Ghost. The consequence and seal of the gift of grace 
just mentioned. 

Ver. 5. Kai xarov yevoauévore Oeod pia] and have tasted the refreshing 
word of God. That the author already makes use afresh in this place of 
the verb yeveoda, after he has only just before employed it ver. 4, Bleek 
ascribes, not wrongly, to a certain perplexity on the part of the writer 
about finding for the idea to be expressed another term of the same im- 
port. For the supposition of Delitzsch, that the repetition of the same 
expression is to be explained from the design of bringing out so much the 
more strongly the reality of the experiences made and of their objects, 
would be admissible only if the second yevoauévovc, like the first, were 
placed emphatically at the beginning of its clause, and there were not 
already another verb inserted between the two yevoapévoue. yebecdar is 
here, as John ii. 9, construed with the accusative, which occurs only in 
the Hellenistic, never with the Greek classic writers. To assume, how- 
ever, a different signification in the case of the two constructions,—Ben- 
gel: “alter (genitivus) partem denotat; nam gustum Christi, doni 
coelestis, non exhaurimus in hac vita; alter (accusativus) plus dicit, 
quatenus verbi Dei praedicati gustus totus ad hanc vitam pertinet, quan- 
quam eidem verbo futuri virtutes seculi annectuntur;” Bloomfield: 
“here (ver. 4) yeboaoda signifies to have experience of a thing, by having 
received and possessed it; whereas in the clause following it signifies to 
know a thing by experience of its value and benefit ;” Delitzsch (comp. 
also Moll): “with yevoauévove tic dwp. tie éxovp. is combined the concep- 
tion that the heavenly gift is destined for all men, and is of inexhaustible 
fullness of intent; with Ka%dv yevoapévove Heod pjua, however, the concep- 
tion that God's precious word was, as it were, the daily bread of those thus 
described,”’—is already forbidden by the homogeneity of the statements, 
ver. 4 and ver. 5.—The expression pjuata caaé serves, LXX. Josh xxi. 
45, xxiii. 15, Zech. i. 18, for the rendering of the Hebrew 2.077290 and 
D'210 037 and is used of words of consolation and promise spoken by 
God or the angel of God. In accordance therewith, we shall best also 
here refer kaAdv Ae0v pjua to the gospel, inasmuch as God thereby gives 
promises, and fulfills the promises given.'—Others? understand the ex- 
pression of the gospel in general; in connection with which some, as , 
Calvin and Braun, see denoted in xadév a contrast with the Mosaic law, 
the characteristic of which was judicial severity. According to Bleek, 
finally, we have to think of a personified attribute of God; which is sup- 
posed to be here mentioned because the gospel, with its consolatory mes- 
sage, is an efflux from the same,—an interpretation, however, which finds 
no sort of support in the context.—dvvapuere te uéAAovTog aidvoc] and powers 
of the world to come. What is intended is the extraordinary miraculous 


1So Theodoret (thy brécxeow tov ayabdv), 2As Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
Estius, Schlichting, Grotius, Limboreh, Owen, lact, Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Jac. Cap- 
Whitby, Abresch, B6hme, Kuinoel, Klee, de _ pellus, Piscator, Bengel, Peirce, Heinrichs, 
Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Alford. 
Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz. 


CHAP. VI. 5, 6. 539 


powers wrought by the Holy Ghost, as these were called forth by the new 
order of the world founded by Christ. The aiav péAAwv, namely (comp. 
oixouuévn 7% uéAdovoa, 1. 5), is for the author nothing purely future,—so that 
we have not! to think of the everlasting life, or of the glory coming in 
with the Parousia of Christ, of which believers have received a foretaste 
here upon earth,—but already begins, according to his view, with the 
appearing of Christ upon earth, in that only its consummation still be- 
longs to the future, namely, the time of Christ’s return. 

Ver. 6. Kai raparecévtac|] and (in spite of this) have fallen, i.e. have 
fallen away again from Christianity —r4aa] belongs to avaxawifev. The 
taking of the same with raparecévrac (Heinsius, Alting, Peirce, and others) ° 
has the position of the word against it. A pleonasm, however (Grotius), 
is not produced by wadcv along with the ava in avaxawifew. For ava 
marks out the becoming new as a change ensuing, in opposition to the 
preceding state of the old man; whereas 7éAcv has reference to the fact 
that the class of men described have already experienced that change, 
namely, at their first conversion.—davakawifew] to renew, to fashion inwardly 
new. Tosupplement an éavrotc¢ to the verb (Erasmus, Vatablus, al.), 
according to which the preceding accusatives of the object would be 
changed into accusatives of the subject, is arbitrary.—eic¢ petavovay] not 
equivalent to dca jeravoiac (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zeger, Corn. a 
Lapide), but under the form of conception of the result: in such wise 
that change of mind or repentance should arise therefrom.—avacravpodrtac 
x.7.2.] since they, ete. Note of cause to adivatov avaxawifew. The impossi- 
bility of the renewal is explained by the magnitude of the culpability. By 
their action such men bear witness that the Son of God is in their estima- 
tion a transgressor and deceiver who has been justly crucified.—The com- 
pound form avacravpovy occurs with classic writers only in the sense 
of “nailing up to the cross.”? In itself, however, the explanation is 
equally admissible: “ crucify afresh.” Thus it is accordingly taken with- 
out questioning by the Greek interpreters, and probably was so meant by 
the author.—éavroic] Dativus incommodi: to their own judgment. Vata- 
blus: in suam ipsorum perniciem. Too weak, Bleek,—to whom Delitzsch, 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 769), and Alford give in their adhesion, 
—‘“they crucify Him to themselves, in so far as, by that crucifying again, 
they rob Him of themselves, who were in His possession.” False is the 
interpretation of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Lim- 
borch, Bohme, Bisping: as much as in them lies, bcov 76 é@’ éavtoic; Hein- 
richs: each one for himself; Schulz: by themselves [by their own act]; 
Grotius, Abresch, Tholuck, explaining by the supposition of the so-called 
Dativus localis: in themselves; Hofmann: as regards their own persons ; 
Klee: to their contentment ; Stengel: to the joy and pleasure of their obdurate 
heart ; Kurtz: to the gratification of their hatred or their enmity against Him. 
Over refinedly Bengel and Delitzsch: sibi, as an opposition to rapaderypuaric- 


1With Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, B6hme, 2Comp. L. Bos, Exercitatt., and Wetstein 
Kurtz, and others. ad loc. 


536 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


ovrac, ostentantes, sc. aliis.—rdv vidv tov Beot] A more palpable manifesta- 
tion of the enormity of the crime than would have been the case had he 
written tov Xpioréy or Incovv. Comp. x. 29.—rapadevyyarifew] to expose to 
scorn and insult; here, inasmuch as the death of the cross was a shameful 
one. apadetyyarifew stronger than the simple decyyarifew, Matt. i. 19. 
Concluding remarks on vy. 4-6.—The declaration of vv. 4-6 has been 
of importance for the controversy of the early church, as to the question 
whether those who relapsed from the gospel renounced for ever the hope 
of salvation, or whether by means of sincere repentance they might once 
more attain to a state of salvation. The rigoristic view was especially 
maintained by the Montanists and Novatianists; and already Tertullian, 
de Pudicitia, c. 20, appeals to our passage in favor thereof. In opposition 
to this view, another sense was universally put upon the passage in the 
orthodox church from the time of the fourth century. The words were 
interpreted of an impossibility of imparting a second time the baptism 
once administered, and the consequent condemnable character of such an 
act, in that according to a later usus loquendi (first met with in Justin 
Martyr, Apol. i. 62, 65) they took @wrifev to be a designation of baptism, 
referred dvaxawifew sic jetavorcav to the repetition of baptism, and in 
avaoravpowvtac «.t.A. found the indication of that which such repetition 
would produce or involve! That this interpretation, which is still fol- 
lowed among later expositors by Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, and Calmet, 
is a wrong one, is now generally admitted. The justification, however, of 
this passage, which furnished to Luther a determining reason for denying 
to the epistle canonicity in the narrower sense (see the Introduction, p. 
18), is afforded by the fact that—as is also pointed out, x. 26-31—the 
author is speaking not of a falling away in general, but of a clearly defined 
falling away, 7.é, as is rightly urged by Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, 
Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Carpzoyv, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2; p. 841 f. 2 Aufl.), Maier, and others, those 
Christians are described who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost 
(Matt. xii. 31 f.; Mark iii. 28 f.; Luke xii. 10), or the duapria rpic 
Sdavarov (1 John y. 16). For Christians are described who fall away, not, 
e.g., from mere weakness, from a mere wavering of conviction, but in 
spite of a better knowledge, and in spite of having experienced the treas- 
ures of grace in Christianity; Christians who, according to the parallel 
passage, x. 26 ff., against their better consciousness and conscience, tread 
under foot the Son of God as though He were a deceiver, brand His blood 


Svuvbarrto- 


1Comp. e. g. Theodoret: Tay ayav advvatwv, 
dyno, Tovs TS Tavayiw mpoceAnAvOdtas Bar- 
TiTUATL Kal THS TOV Belov mvEvmaTos XapLTOS 
BeTELAnboTas Kal TOV aiwviwy ayabav Sefape= 
vous Tov TUmov avOis mpoceAOely Kal TuXELVY 
étépov Bantiopatos. Tovto yap ovdév éoriv 
ETEpov, ) maALY Tov viov TOV bEod TS GTaVPa 
TpocTyAMoat kal THY yeyevrnMEeVHY aTiLiav TAAL 
ait mpocdwor. "Qomep yap dmaé Td maOos 
@UTOS Umemeev, OUTW Kal yuas amak aiTa 


TPOTHKEL KOLWWYHTAaL TOV TaouS. 
peda S€ avta ba Tov Bamticpatos Kai cuvay- 
totapeba. Ovx oidv te ovY HMas maALY amTro- 
Aavoa THs TOV Bamticpatos SwpEas. ~XpioTos 
yap avaotas €K veKp@v ovK Te amrobvyoKel, 
Odvatos avTov ovK Er Kuptever. “O yap amebave, 
TH amaptia améBavey ébamaé, 6 Sé Cy, Gn TO 
Geo. Kat yu@v S€ 6 madards avOpwros cuve- 
otavpwHdyn év Td Bantiomatt, TOU Bavatov Tov 
TuTov dSefapevos. 


CHAP. VI. 7. 537 


shed for redemption as the blood of a transgressor, and scoff at the Spirit 
of grace as a spirit of falsehood. In regard to men of this kind, the 
adivatov marw avaxarvivew ei¢ petavocay is employed in its full right, since 
with them there must be inwardly wanting every kind of receptiveness or 
receptibility for the weravora. The reference of the declaration to the sin 
against the Holy Ghost is, moreover, so much the more unquestionable, 
inasmuch as the author by no means says that the readers have already 
committed it, but, on the contrary, only sets at once before their eyes asa 
terrible warning the extreme length to which their conduct may lead 
them. 

Vv. 7, 8. Confirmation of the adivaror x.7.2. on its objective side; since 
in connection with so great culpability and such ingratitude the divine 
punishment cannot fail to ensue. This thought is rendered manifest by 
means of a similitude. The common subject for ver. 7 and ver. 8 is not 
merely y#, but y7 7 miovoa tov én’ aizae ipyouevov ToAAdKc betév taken to- 
gether. For the intention of the author is to point to the diversity of 
result arising from equally favorable preliminary conditions. The main 
point of the similitude, however, lies in ver. 8, while ver. 7 serves only by 
way of preparation, and as a means of bringing out into bolder relief the 
following opposition.—y7 yap 7 muwvca .. . terdv] for the field which has 
drunk in the rain frequently coming down upon it. Figure of the men before 
described, who ofttimes have experienced God’s gracious benefits, and have 
received the same into themselves—The participle aorist rcotca is 
chosen, while then participles present (rikrovca, éxdépovea) follow, because the 
fact already historically completed is to be emphasized, from which, then, 
two different effects are developed for the time present—A rivecv, 
tixtecy, etc., is ascribed to the y7, because this, as in general is very fre- 
quently the case, is personified as a part of the life-displaying, assiduously 
productive nature.—én’ airjc] The construction of éxi with the genitive, 
after a verb of motion, is distinguished from the more usual one with the 
accusative, in this respect, that the former includes in itself at the same 
time the notion of tarrying. Comp. Winer, p. 352 [E. T. 876].—xai 
tixrovoa] In place of this, merely tixtovea or tiktovoa vév would have been 
more correctly written. Kai, however, does not stand in the sense of 
“also” (Hofmann), but is the ordinary “ and.”—Bordvy] in the N. T. only 
here, employed by the LXX. as a rendering of SWI (Gen. i. 11, 12), 2y. 
(Ex. ix. 22, x. 12,15), and V1) (Job viii. 12), denotes, according to its deriva- 
tion from (écKo, originally herbage or pasturage, but then also every kind 
of vegetation or produce of the field —ei%eroc] well-placed, fit, profitable. 
Comp. Luke ix. 62. xiv. 35.—éxeivo¢] may be referred to et¥erov (Béhme 
and the majority), but it also admits of being referred to rixrovca (Bleek, 
Alford, Hofmann).—4d? otc] for whose sake. Grammatically false, the Vul- 
gate, Zeger, and others: a quibus Calvin: quorum opera; Erasmus, 
Vatablus, Heinrichs, and others: per quos; Luther: for those who till it; 
Schulz: for those who labor on it; Wieseler (Comm. wb. d. Br. P. an die Gal., 
Gott. 1859, p. 111): at whose command and disposal—kai yewpyeirar] it also 
(or even) ts cultivated, brings into relief the naturalness of the ti«recv Bordvyn 





538 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


ebSetov éxeivorc, in that the éxeivoe are the proprietors of the land, to whom 
the cultivation and produce of the same pertains. Incorrectly Schlichting 
(as likewise BOhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann): Ait autem “e¢ colitur,” ut ad 
imbrium irrigationem etiam terrae istius diligentem accedere culturam 
ostendat. In the application of the figure, the éxetvor, dv’ ob¢ Kad yewpyeira 
are God and Christ; not God alone (Schlichting, Grotius, Cramer, de 
Wette, Tholuck, Alford), since in this way justice is not done to the 
plural.—vera2auBaver evaoyiac ard tov Seov] receives part in the blessing at the 
hand of God, namely, in that its fruitfulness is progressively augmented. 
Comp. Matt. xiii. 12; John xv. 2. Too weak, Grotius, Wittich: it is 
praised or commended by God.—azd rod Seov] from God (as the bestower), 
is best connected with petaAauBaver, not with edAoyiac. 

Ver. 8. The contrast.—Ex@épovca] [LVIII c¢.] as to its signification not 
different from the preceding tixtovoa. Without justification by usage is 
it supposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Grotius, Wittich, Valckenaer, Klee, and Bloomfield, that the word is to be 
taken in malam partem, namely, in the sense: “ Ejicere quasi abortus.”— 
dxavdac Kai tpidaove] Thorns and thistles. Proverbial designation of rankly 
springing weeds and wild growth.'—adéxiuoc] se. éoriv, it fails to stand the 
test, is rejected, namely, in the judgment of God, as is self-evident from the 
axd tov Yeov in the preceding clause. Wrongly, therefore, Hofmann: it 
is unworthy to be treated as arable land.—x«ai xatapac éyyic] and near to 
the curse, i.e. not: devoted to the execration of men (Hofmann), but 
exposed to the peril of being abandoned by God to everlasting barrenness 
and desolation. Enhancement of adéxiwoc. At the same time, however, 
there is to be found in éyyéc a softening of the expression, manifestly 
with a reference to the fact that it is not yet too late for the readers to 
combat their lustings after defection, and to return fully into the right 
way (comp. ver. 9 ff.).2—7ce 7d TéAoc ele Kavow] sc. éoriv, and its ultimate fate 
issues in burning. ye is referred by Camerarius, Abresch, Heinrichs, 
Stuart, Bleek, to xatdpac; but more correctly by Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Bohme, Kuinoel, 
Stengel, Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. .des Hebraerbr. p. 773), 
Alford, Maier, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner, and the majority, to the main 
subject; in such wise that the relative is to be complemented by vie, 
ex@epovonce axavdac kai tpBdaAove. In connection therewith, however, to 
take eiva: cic, with Carpzov, Bbhme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and 
others, as a Hebraism Q m1), is inadmissible. See Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 
184.]—The understanding, moreover, of a burning of the field, or of its 
produce, in order that the land may be improved, as that which is 
intended by «aiore (Schlichting, Bloomfield, and others), is forbidden by 
the connection, since no other than the divine punitive judgment. burst- 
ing in upon it has to be described. What is meant is the burning up of 


1Comp. Gen. iii. 18; Hos. x. 8 (V1) yp); © Adyos. Kartdpas yap eimev éyyls, ov Katapa* 
Matt. vii. 16. 6 5& pnderw eis THY KaTapay euTegwV GAN’ evyvs, 
2Chrysostom; BaBat, moony €xet TapapvOiav yevowevos Kai pakpav yeveoOar SuvyceTat. 


CHAP. vi. 8—10. 539 


che nield itself by fire and brimstone coming down from heaven; by which, 
e.g., the soil of Sodom and Gomorrah was rendered for ever incapable of 
tillage (Bleek, Tholuck, Ebrard, Alford, Maier, Moll, al.). Comp. Gen. 
xix. 24; Deut. xxix. 23; also Heb. x. 27: rupo¢ CyAog éodiew pédAovtog rove 
DrevavTiove. 

Ver. 9. [On Vy. 9-12, see Note LIX., pages 552, 553.] Softening of the 
foregoing warning representation by attestation of the confidence, that 
this description will not be applicable to the readers.—Mereiopeda dé repi 
tjuov] [LIX a.] But we are convinced in regard to you. Comp. Rom. xv. 
14.—rereicueda] stronger than reroiSayev.—repi buov] has the emphasis. 
It is therefore already placed here, not first after owrypiac—The appellation 
ayaryrot only here in the epistle.'—ra xpeiooova] of that which is better. This 
may refer to the subjective side, but it may also refer to the objective side 
of the foregoing comparison. In the first case the sense is: that your 
condition is a better one, than that you should be compared to a land 
bringing forth thorns and thistles; in the latter case: that your fate will 
be a better one than curse and perdition. On account of the plural ra 
xpeicoova we shall do best to combine both factors together, as, indeed, the 
last is but the consequence of the first. When, however, Hofmann thinks 
that ra xpelooova does not at all point to the foregoing comparison, but 
stands by itself without any reference, in that it denotes only the good in 
opposition to the bad, this is not only opposed to the context, but also 
grammatically false, since the comparative is never placed for the posi- 
tive. See Winer, p. 227 f. [E. T. 242 f.]—kat éydueva owrnpiac] and of that 
which stands in contact with salvation, i. e. that you will attain to salvation. 
[LIX b.] éyéuevov, with the genitive, denotes that which is closely 
joined to an object, that which is either outwardly (logically or tempor- 
ally) or inwardly bound up with it. Instances in Bleek, I. 2, p. 220 ff— 
el kal obtwc Aadovwev] Chrysostom: BéAtiov yap tuac toig phuace goPyoal, wa 
uy Tolg Tpdynacw aAynonte.—obTwc] sc. as was done vv. 4-8. 

Ver. 10. Reason for the good confidence expressed ver. 9. [LEX c.]—ob 
yap adixoc 6 Sedc, emidadécdar] for God is not unjust, that He should forget. 
God exercises retributive righteousness. Since, then, the readers have 
performed, and do still perform, actions worthy of Christian recognition, 
it is to be expected that God will be mindful thereof, and, provided they 
will only perform their own part fully (comp. vv. 11, 12), will conduct 
them with His grace and lead them to the possession of salvation. A 
claim to demand salvation of God, on account of their behavior, is not 
conceded by the words of ver. 10; only as a factor which God, by virtue 
of His retributive righteousness, will take into account in connection with 
the final result, is this brought forward for the consolation and encourage- 
ment of the readers; while, moreover, reference is at once made anew, 
ver. 11 f,, to the still unsatisfactory character of their Christian state, and 


1Schlichting: Apposite eos sic vocat, ne liora ominemur iis, quos amamus, et, si quid 
putarent, eum aliquo ipsorum odio laborare, severius dicimus, animo corrigendi non 
sed ut scirent, eum amore Christiano erga nocendi cupido dicamus, 
ipsos flagrare, qui amor facit, ut semper me- 


540 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


in general to the peril of falling again from their state of grace.—ézi.adéo- 
8a] The infinitive aorist expresses the mere verbal notion, without 
respect to the relation of time.! It is to be taken neither in the sense of a 
preterite (Seb. Schmidt: ut oblitus sit) nor of a future (Bisping and 
others).—rov épyov iuav| your work (as lying completed), ¢.e. that which 
you have done. The expression is quite general. A more precise limita- 
tion thereof may be found in the following «ai ry¢ ayarne, by taking kai. 
as the epexegetic “and indeed,” “and that.” So Peshito, as also Kurtz 
and Woerner. But since, in any case, the passage x. 32 ff. is to be com- 
pared as a real (though not verbal) parallel to the statement ver. 10, and 
there, in addition to the love displayed, the stedfastness manifested by 
the readers under persecutions is lauded, it is most natural, with Schlicht- 
ing, Grotius, and others, to suppose that just to this the general roi épyov 
juov in our passage also more especially alluded.—rje¢ ayaryc] [LIX d.] 
has not in itself alone the notion of love “to the brethren,” in such wise 
that cic rd dvoua avtovw would have to be translated: “for His name” 
(Matt. x. 41, 42, xviii. 20), i.e. to His honor (Vulgate: in nomine ejus; 
Béhme and others: é7? +6 d6véuate aitov, Matt. xvii. 5). On the contrary, 
The ayarn¢e acquires its object in the ei¢ 7d dvoua avtov, to be construed in 
relation to 7 évedeifaode (Not to diaxovgoavtes x.7.A., to Which Beza was 
inclined). Thus: the love which ye have shown to His name (sc. God’s name, 
not Christ’s, Ernesti and others). This is the more general object, which 
only then obtains its more special reference and indication of purport by 
Staxovgoavtec «.7.A. A love exercised towards Christian brethren, inasmuch 
as Christians, as God’s children, bear the name of God.—diakovioartec roi¢ 
dyiowe| in that ye have rendered service to the saints (the fellow-Christians), 
have aided them when they were in distress and affliction (not specially : 
in poverty). But that this was not merely a virtue exercised once for all, 
but one still continuously exercised, is clearly brought out by the addition 
kal dcaxovovrrecs. [LIX e. | 

Vv. 11, 12. To that which the author hopes with regard to the readers, 
he now attaches that which he wishes to see performed by them.—ér6oy0i- 
pev dé] [LIX f.] now we long, most ardently desire. Stronger expression 
than @éAouev or Bovdadueda [to set-one’s heart on it, Matt. xiii. 17; Acts xx. 
83; 1 Tim. iii. 1, ete.].—éxaorov tuév] More emphatic and accentuating 
than the mere tude would be. There is denoted by it, on the one hand, 
that the heart-felt interest which the author cherishes in the readers ex- 
tends to every single one of them. On the other hand, there lies in it the 
thought that if haply single individuals among the readers already cor- 
respond to the demand here made, it is still of supreme importance that 
every one of them should so comport himself as is mentioned.—In the 
sequel, tiv avray évdeixvvodac oxovdgy isnot in such manner to be 
taken together with aypce réAovc that the main stress should fall upon 
this, and rpdc-tHv rAnpodopiay tHe éAridoc be regarded as a mere 
subsidiary factor. In connection with this mode of interpretation,’ the 


1See Ktihner, II. 2 445, 2. menius, Theophylact, Grotius, Seb. Schmidt, 
* Adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- Limborch, and others. 


CHAP, ‘Vr. LE 12, 541 
demand of the author would amount to this, that the readers should 
manifest the same zeal which, according to ver. 10, they have already dis- 
played, even to the end or in all future time. But in such manner it is 
assumed that the author has every reason for being satisfied with the 
Christian condition of the readers, and desires nothing more than a con- 
tinuance of the same, whereas the whole epistle testifies that the state of 
things with the Hebrews was very different from this. Hence it is evi- 
dent that the emphasis rests quite as much upon mpoc¢ t7v TAnpodopiav 
THe EAridoc aS Upon aype Tédove. The thought must thus be: the author 
longs for the readers to display the same zeal which they have already 
manifested in regard to an active love, in equal measure also in another 
relation, namely, in regard to the 7Aypodgopia «.t./.,! in connection with 
which, however, aype téAovge is best taken, not, as is generally the case 
even with this correct determination of the thought, with évdeixvvcba, but 
in close juxtaposition with mpd¢ ty rAnpodopiav tig éAridoc.—rpo¢ Tv TAnpo- 
gopiav tHe éAridog aype TéAovc] [LIX g.] in regard to the full certainty of con- 
viction concerning the Christian’s hope, unto.the end, t. e. in such manner that 
ye cherish and preserve to the end the Christian’s hope of the Messianic 
kingdom to be looked for at the coming again of Christ, as a firm confi- 
dence of faith, untroubled by any doubts. Comp. iii. 6, 14. Opposite is 
the wavering conviction that the subject of the Christian hope is one 
founded in objective truth; the standing still upon the path of Christianity 
before the goal is reached, and the tendency to fall away again from 
Christianity and to relapse into Judaism.—z27podopia] We have not,” to 
apprehend in the active sense of “perfecting, making full or complete;” 
but to take it, as everywhere in the N. T. (1 Thess. i. 5; Col. ii. 2; Heb. x. 
22; comp. also Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5),? in the passive sense.—d ype réA0ve | unto 
the end, 7.¢. until (at the Parousia of the Lord) hope passes over into the 
possession [of the kingdom] itself. 

Ver. 12. Further prosecution of pic tiv mrAnpodopiay tic éAridoc ayxpe 
tédove, ver. 11.—iva py vobpoi yévyobe] that ye become not sluggish. The 
yévyo8e, pointing to the future, stands in no contradiction with yeydvare at 
v.11. There, the sluggishness of the intellect was spoken of; here, it is 
sluggishness in the retaining of the Christian hope. There is therefore no 
need of the conjecture vé9o (after xii. 8) for vwdpoi (Heinrichs).—pruyrat 
dé Tov dia TioTews Kai KaKpoduuiac KAnpovouobyTwY Tac érayyeAiac] but rather imi- 
tators of those who, through faith and perseverance, inherit the promises. Of 
the two substantives ticrewc kai waxpo¥vuiac, the latter forms the lead- 
ing idea; comp. ver. 15, where only paxpodvufoce is placed. Kaé is there- 
fore the more nearly defining “ and indeed.” Thus: by faith, and indeed 
by persevering constancy in the same.—The wakpoSvuia, elsewhere usually 
the divine attribute of long-suffering or forbearance, is likewise predicated 


180 Bengel, Cramer, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Delitasch, 
Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and 
others. 

2 With Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schulz, 


Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, and others, after 
the example of the Vulgate: “ad expletionem 
spei.” 

3 With Erasmus, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, 
Beza, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, 


542 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


of men, Col. i. 11; Jas. v. 7, 8, 10; LXX. Isa. lvii. 15 (dAcyopbyoug didn 
pakpodvuiav), and frequently, and in the first-named passage combined with 
vrouovy as a synonym.—The éxayyediac are those given by God in the time 
of the Old Covenant, which by means of Christianity attain to their full 
realization. Comp. vil. 6, viil. 6, xi. 18, 17, 33; Rom. ix. 4, xv.8; 2 Cor. i. 
20, vii. 1; Gal. ii. 16. Comp. also the singular 7 érayyedia, ix. 15, x. 36, 
Xl. 89.—KAypovopeiv tac émayyeAiac denotes: to enter into the heritage of 
these promises, 1. €. to attain to the enjoyment or possession of the blessings 
placed in prospect by them. That in our passage (comp. ix. 15, x. 36, xi. 
39) KAnpovousiv tac érayyediag cannot be understood, with Schulz and Bleek, 
of the mere “receiving of the imparting of the promises as such, apart 
from their fulfillment,” is shown by the very position of the words, accord- 
ing to which the main force of the statement is contained not in tae 
éxayyediac, but in KAnpovoyotvtwr. Comp. also ver. 15, where for the same 
reason éréruyev is placed before the substantive ra¢ érayyediac. Besides, 
it is also evident from the fact that in such case there would be nothing 
in ver. 12 to correspond to the conception of the ensuing possession itself, 
indicated as this is in the aypc téAove of ver. 11.—In connection with 
TOV KAnpovoxobvtwrv almost all expositors,' think of the patriarchs, 
especially Abraham, and of them either alone or with the inclusion of all 
believers of the New Covenant. This interpretation, however, to which 
they were without any necessity led by the consideration of ver. 18, is 
untenable. For, in order to harmonize with it in its first-named form, 
the writing of «Aypovouycavtwy would have been necessary,—for which, ac- 
cordingly, many will have the participle present to be taken; to harmon- 
ize with it in its last-named form, the writing of kAypovouycavtwr te Kai KAnpo- 
vowovvrwy Would have been required. The characterizing oi dia riotewe Kai 
pakpoSuuiag KAnpovoyewvtes Tac émayyediac is, on the contrary, quite a general 
one, and the participle present marks out that which assuredly takes place, 
or in accordance with a constant and fixed rule (as a rewarding of the ful- 
filled preliminary condition of rior Kai paxpoduuia). The thought is 
therefore, not that the readers should take the patriarchs as a model, but 
in general that they should take as such those who manifest persevering 
constancy in the faith, and, on that very account, beyond doubt attain to 
the possession of that which is promised. 

Vv. 138-15. [On Vv. 13-20, see Note LX., pages 553-555.] Proof of the gen- 
eral truth that stedfast endurance leads to the possession of the promised 
blessing, from the special instance of Abraham. [LX a.] Calvin: exem- 
plum Abrahae adducitur, non quia unicum sit, sed quia prae aliis illustre. 
—T@ yap ’ABpadu érayyeiAdpuevoc 6 bed¢] for when God had given promise to 
Abraham. [LX 6 1.] érayyerAdpevoc we have, with de Wette, to take as 
in point of time anterior to Suocev. It has reference to the promises 
which God had already, Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 18, imparted to Abra- 
ham, and which were then, Gen. xxii. 16-18, not merely repeated to him 
Calov, Wolf, Abresch, Heinrichs, Bohme, Tho- 1Jneluding Béhme, Bleek, de Wette, Tho. 


luck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, luck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Kluge. 
and the majority. 


CHAP. VI. 13-15. 543 


by God, and confirmed by an oath, but likewise, in part at least, were ful- 
filled (see at ver. 15).—érel ar’ ovdevoc x.t.A.] because there was no greater or 
higher (ovdevdc, masculine, not, as Hofmann supposes, neuter), by whom 
He could swear, He sware by Himself. [LX 6 2.] Relation of the words, 
LXX. Gen. xxii. 16: xar’ iuavtov pooa, AEyeL kopioc, With the reason for 
this form of declaration inserted. 

Ver. 14. Ei pay «.7.A.] Adducing of the declaration, Gen. xxii. 17, with 
the difference, that in the case of the LXX. rAjOwG 7o oréppa cov is in 
harmony with the original put in place of tAnduve oe. This deviation is 
not to be explained by the supposition that the author chose ce instead 
of rd omépua cov merely “ for brevity’s sake” (Jac. Cappellus), or “in order 
to present the promise in a form as concentrated as possible” (Delitzsch), 
or that he cited from memory (Abresch), or that he wished to place in the 
background all thought of the merely physical descendants of Abraham, 
and direct the glance of the reader exclusively to the spiritual or heavenly 
posterity of Abraham, which was appointed to him through Christ (Bohme, 
Bisping, and others). It has its ground simply in the fact that the author 
was here occupied exclusively with the person of Abraham himself 
(Bleek, de Wette, Maier).—i jv] in place of the Greek # pv, or of the & 
uf, formed after the Hebrew xb-o8, is met with elsewhere in the LXX. 
(Ezek. xxxiil. 27, xxxiv. 8, XxXXv. 6, XXXvVl. 9, al.), not, indeed, so far as 
concerns our passage in the Cod. Alex. and Cod. Vatic., but yet in other 
ancient Mss.; and in any case, our author found it in the copy of the 
LXX. used by him.—The combination of the participle with the tempus 
finitum of the same verb (evAoyav evsoyzow x.t.A.) is a well-known Grecising 
of the Hebrew infin. absol., occurring exceedingly often in the LXX., and 
serving generally—as here—for the augmented and solemn emphasizing 
of the idea contained in the verb. See Winer, p. 332 [E. T. 354]. 

Ver. 15. Kai otrwc] [LX 6 3.] and in this way, i.e. since God on His part 
had in such manner afforded documentary evidence for the solemnity of 
His resolve. otrwc¢ belongs to éérvyzer. The combining of it with paKpo- 
Suufjoac, as is done by Stein, Tholuck,? and Bisping, and consequently 
taking the participle as an epexegesis of obrwc, 1s inadmissible, because in 
that case the waxpodvuia of Abraham in particular must have been spoken 
of immediately before. The opinion of Delitzsch, however, who is fol- 
lowed by Maier, that “ the combination of the two combinations ” is “ the 
right one,” refutes itself, since it requires that which is logically impossible. 
—naxpobvujcac] because he showed [or: had shown] persevering stedfastness (se. 
in the faith, comp. ver. 12), in particular by the fact that he had just now 
been so ready at God’s behest to sacrifice his son Isaac, although this 


1Gomp. Philo, Legg. allegor. iii. 98 E (with 2 Who unaccountably advances, as an argu- 
Mangey, I. p. 127), where, with regard to the ment in support, the supposition that “then 
same passage of Scripture, it is said: ed Kat a parallel arises between the Christians, who, 
TO opkw BeBarooas Tv UmécxXeoLV, Kal OpK® according to vv. 17, 18, are, on the ground of 


Seomperet. ‘Opas yap o7e ov Kas? eTEpOV the divine oath, to hold fast the hope, and 
duvver Seds—ovdev yap avrov KpetTTOvV—aAAG Abraham, who likewise did so.” 


Kae’ éavTod, Os éoTe TAVTWY apioTos. 


544 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


soon appeared to afford the only hold for the realization of the divine pro- 
mise.—éréruyev tig emayyeniac] he obtained the promise, i.e. the thing [LX } 
4, 5.] promised, inasmuch, namely, as not only Isaac was given back alive 
to Abraham, but he further lived to see the time when two sons were born 
to Isaac (comp. Gen. xxi. 5, xxv. 7, 26), and thus the divine promise was 
fulfilled in its earlier stage. Not a fulfillment, which Abraham first wit- 
nessed in the life beyond the grave (Maier, Hofmann), is intended. Nor 
have we here to take érayyedia, with Bleek, in the active sense [the giving 
of a promise], and to refer it to the Messianic salvation placed in pros- 
pect. For, apart from the consideration that in this case éréruyev rie 
érayyediac Would, in relation to éray)..Aduevoc, ver. 18, indicate no advance, 
the emphatically preposed éréruyev can be understood only of the obtaining 
possession of the promised object itself. The promise repeated to Abra- 
ham, Gen. xxii. 17, 18, presented itself under a twofold point of view. 
His seed was to be multiplied, and in his seed were all nations of the 
earth to be blessed. Only the first of these in its earlier stage could Abra- 
ham, from the nature of the case, live to see; the fulfillment of the latter 
was attached to the appearing of Christ upon earth, which was to be 
looked for in the distant future. The first-named reference obtains ver. 
15. The last-named mode of contemplating the subject underlies the 
KAnpovouoe tHE éxayyediac, Ver. 17. That, too, which we read xi. 18, 39, is 
spoken from the last-named point of view, on which account there is not 
to be found in these passages a contradiction of ours. 

Vy. 16-20. [LX c.] Not without design did the author, in connection 
with the historic fact, vv. 183-15, make mention also of the divine oath, 
although the mention thereof in that place was not necessarily required 
by the relation to ver. 12. His object, namely, was further to bring into 
special prominenge the practical advantage accruing to the readers from 
this circumstance. This he accomplishes vv. 16-20. For, since the pro- 
mise imparted to Abraham; in so far as it respected the blessing of all 
nations by means of his seed, could receive its’ fulfillment only in condi- 
tioning connection with Christ, the Saviour of all believers, the Christians 
are thus the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant; so also by the oath of God 
there is guaranteed to them, no less than to Abraham, an indefeasible 
claim to the object of promise. To hold fast to the Christian hope, object- 
_ ively assured and undisappointing as this is, the Christians therefore must 
feel themselves most powerfully animated. 

Ver. 16. Tap] [LX d1.] establishes the érei kat” ovdevdg k.7.A., Guooev Kab 
éavrov, ver. 13. Not, however, ver. 16 merely (against Hofmann), but the 
whole paragraph, vv. 16-18, is to be looked upon as an establishing of 
these words. For ver. 16 is only a lemma, only a preparation for ver, 17 
f.; and, indeed, ver. 16 states the practice valid among men with regard 
to the taking of the oath, while ver. 17 f. there is shown in connection 
with this the object contemplated by God in His declaration upon oath.— 
Kara Tov peiCovoc] by the Higher One. meilovoc is not neuter (M’Caul : “to 
a thing that is greater, e.g. the temple, the altar ;”» Hofmann), but mascu- 
line, and thereby God is intended.—With «ai the second half of the sen- 


CHAP. VI. 16, 17. 545 


tence, ver. 16, is closely attached to the first: “ and so,” “and conse- 
quently.” To the habitual practice of men just mentioned, the legal 
relation therefrom arising is joined on.—rdoy¢ aitoig avtidoyiag mépag etc 
BeBaiwow 6 dpkoc] the oath is to them an end to every kind of (every conceiv- 
able) contradiction, unto establishment..—For avzcioyia as“ contradiction ”’? 
comp. Vii. 7, also xii.3; Jude 11. The signification “dispute,” “ litiga- 
tion,” ® is certainly perfectly warranted by the usage alike of the classical 
writers (Xen. Hellen. vi. 8. 9) as of the LXX. (Ex. xvili. 6, Heb. 13; Deut. 
xix. 7, 2°; Prov. xviii, 18, O°2)19, al.). But here this meaning is remote 
from the connection, since ver. 16 serves for the explanation of. the trust- 
worthiness of a divine declaration, but not the explanation of a con- 
tention between God and men (Bleek). [LX d 2.] The meaning 
~“dubitatio,” “doubt,” assigned to the word by Grotius and Cramer, it 
never has.—ei¢ BeBaiwow] unto ratification, or the creation of an indefeasible 
claim. Wrongly do Jac. Cappellus, Peirce, Paulus, and others take e¢ 
BeBatworr—which belongs to the whole second clause, not merely to mépac¢ 
(Bohme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford)—along with 6 épxoc: “the oath given in 
confirmation,” which must have been expressed by 6 sig BeBaiwow opxoc.— 
It results as a necessary inference from ver. 16, that the author did not 
regard the taking of the oath on the part of men as anything forbidden. 
Comp. Calvin: Praeterea hic locus docet aliquem inter Christianos juris- 
jurandi usum esse ligitimum.... Nam apostolus certe hic de ratione 
jurandi tanquam de re pia et Deo probata disserit. Porro non dicit olim 
fuisse in usu, sed adhue vigere pronuntiat. 

Ver. 17. "Ev 6] Upon the basis of which fact, i. e. in accordance with this 
human custom, as one validamong men. é ¢, namely, refers back to the 
whole contents of ver. 16 (not merely to 6 épxoc), and coheres not with 
Bovrdsuevoc éxidei€ar,t nor yet with the whole clause following,> but with 
iuecirevoev bpxy.—reptoodrepov] is to be taken along with éudeisav. It does 
‘not, however, signify wnto redundancy, since this was not at all required 
(Beza, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Storr, Klee, and others), but: so 
much the more, or: more emphatically, than would have been done by the 
mere imparting of the promise.—roi¢ KAnpovdpore t7I7¢ éxayyediac]| to the heire 
of the promise. By the kay povédjor, Grotius, Owen, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, 
Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others understand the patriarchs 
as well as all believers; Tholuck and others, only the Old Testament saints ; 
Morus even (notwithstanding the plural), only Abraham ; Calvin, the Jews. 
But, as is clearly apparent from the elucidatory wa éxeyev, ver. 18, only 
the Christians can be meant.—rd aperdberov rij¢ Bovage abou] the unalterable- 





1Comp. Philo, de sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, p. 
146 (with Mangey, I. p. 181): Tov te wyy mortev- 
Hvar xdpw amotovmevor Katapevyovowy ed’ 
dpkov avdpwror’ o dé Feds Kal N€ywv TLTTOS éoTw" 
ote Kal TovVs Adyous av’ToV BeBaroTyTOS évexa 
pndév bpxwv Scadépey - . . OV yap 60 OpKov 
mugtos 6 eds, GAAG dV avTov Kal O OpKos 
BeBacos. 

35 


2Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, 
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner. 

3 Assumed by Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger, 
Cameron, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Hein- 
richs, Bohme, Stengel, and the majority. 

4Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Hofmann, 
al. 

5 Delitasch, Alford. 


546 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


ness of His decree, namely, to make all believers blessed through the seed 
of Abraham. [LX d3.] Arbitrarily, because to the violent setting aside 
of the nearest circle of thought furnished by the context itself, Abresch 
(and similarly Michaelis, Storr, and Delitzsch): “ crediderim, non juratam 
eam promissionem spectari, quam Abrahamo factam in superioribus dix- 
erat, sed illud nominatim jusjurandum, quo Christus sit pontifex creatus 
ad Melchisedeci rationem” (Ps. ex. 4). Neither ver. 20, nor vii. 1 ff., nor 
vii. 20, 21, 28, nor v. 10, contains a justification of this view.—The sub- 
stantively employed adjective brings out the idea of the unchangeable- 
ness, about the accentuation of which the author was here principally 
concerned, more emphatically than if rv Bovdgy aitov tiv aueraberov had 
been written.—aerd6eroc¢ in the N. T. only here and at ver. 18.—évecirev- 
cev opxw] He came forward, as an intervening person, with an oath. As an 
intermediate person, sc. between Himself and Abraham. Men swear by 
God, because He is higher than they. Thus, in the case of an oath among 
men, God is the higher middle person [so peoiryc, Josephus, Antiq. iv. 6. 
7], or the higher surety, for the fulfillment of the promise. But when 
God takes an oath He can only swear by Himself, since there is no higher 
one above Him, and thus only Himself undertakes the part of the surety 
or middle person. peoctetvecy, in the N. T. only here, is employed transi- 
tively and intransitively ; in the latter sense here. It is taken transitively 
by Oecumenius, who supplements ry itécyeow; and Bohme, who supple- 
ments t7v BovAgjy. 

Ver. 18. Indication of purpose to éuecitevcev bpxy, ver. 17, and conse- 
quently parallel to the participial clause there, zepicodrepov BovAduevog éxcd. 
Toi KAnpovdu. THe Ex. TO GueTaOeTov THC BovAge aivrov, but no mere repetition of 
the same, since the divine purpose, which was there presented purely ob- 
jectively in relation to Christians, is now subjectively turned in relation 
to them.—éva_ dbo mpayudtwv apetabétwv] by virtue of two unalterable facts, 
namely, by virtue of the promise and the oath. Against the connection 
(comp. vv. 13, 17) Reuss: l’une de ces choses c’est la parole évangélique 
‘apportée par Christ, l’autre le serment typique donné 4 Abraham.—dio] 
See Winer, p. 63 [E. T. 64]; Buttmann, p. 25 [E. T. 28].—év ol¢ adivarov 
- Wepoacba bedv] in which (i. e. in connection with their fulfillment) it is im- 
possible that God should have lied (deceived). For God is faithful. His bare 
word is trustworthy ; how much more thus when He confirms it by an ° 
oath! To supply a jude to petoacfa (Heinrichs) is inadmissible.—rapdxdy- 
ow] not “ consolation,”’' but, as the hortatory‘tendency of our whole sec- 
tion requires: encouragement.,—Upon rapdkanorv éxyopuev, not upon of 
katagvyévrec,s does kpatgoar THEO TpoKEetmévnc EATidS oc depend; so that 


1Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, 
Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Bohme, 
Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, and the ma- 
jority. ; ; 

2 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Semler, 
Carpzov, Stuart, Bleek, Tholuck, de Wette, 
Delitzsch, Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll, 
Kurtz, and others. 


3Primasius, Erasmus, Beza, Schlichting, 
Grotius, Akersloot, Wolf, Carpzov, Abresch, 
Schulz, B6hme, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, 
Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 749), Al- 
ford, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, and many 
others. 


cHApy vi,” 18,19, 547 
oi kataguydvrec is to be taken! absolutely. [LX d 4.] of xaragvydvrec] those 
who have fled, with the subordinate notion of having found refuge, thus the 
sheltered, saved ones. As regards the sense, the expression is to be thus 
filled up: we who have fled out of the sinful world, and have fled to God. 
As an analogon is compared oi cwfduevor (Acts ii. 47, al.).—Kpatjoa tH¢ Tpo- 
Keyuévng éAridoc] to hold fast? to the hope lying in readiness. To interpret 
kpatnoac as “tolay hold,’ * with a right combining with zapdakAqjov, is 
forbidden by the connection; comp. ver. 11, according to which the read- 
ers already possess the éAric, but not as yet any mAypodopia thereof; comp. 
further the dia pakpobvuiac, ver. 12, and paxpobuugoac, ver. 15.—t7¢ TpokeEl- 
pévne éaridoc [LX d5.] is not the same thing as tHe éAridoc Tov mpoKerpée- 
var, “to the hope of the blessings of salvation which lie before us, which 
await us,” * in such wise that a mingling of the objective notion of éaric¢ with 
the subjective notion thereof would have to be assumed. Still less are we at 
liberty ® to interpret éA7ic in itself alone as “res sperata ”’ (comp. Col. 1. 5). 

/ On the contrary, ver. 19 points to the Christian hope in the subjective sense. 
As mrpokecwévn, however, lying at hand, or existing in readiness, this is char- 
acterized, since it is already infused into the Christians, has already been 
communicated to them as a blessing for possession, with their reception 
of Christianity. nd 

Ver. 19. Description of the absolute certainty of this Christian hope— 
qv] sc. éarida. The referring back to wapdakAnow (Grotius and others) is pos- 
sible only in connection with the erroneous interpretation of this word as 
“solatium,” whereas, with the right apprehension of ver. 18, mapdaxAnow 
éyouev serves for the mere introduction of kpatjoar tie mpokeypévye EArridoc ; 
qv thus most naturally links itself with éAidoc as the last preceding lead- 
ing thought. To this must be added the consideration that frequently also 
elsewhere in antiquity—though nowhere else in Holy Scripture—the 
anchor is already employed as a figure of hope, and appears also upon! 
‘coins as a symbol theoreof.® jv de dyxupav Eyouev tHe Wuy7nc| which we possess 
even as an anchor of the soul, 7. e. in which we possess, as it were, an anchor of 
the soul, which affords it support and protection against the storms and 
perils of the earthly life-—There exists no good reason for making é yecv 
equivalent to karéyew.’—aogaay te Kai BeBaiav Kat eioepyouévyv K.t.A.] which 
(se. anchor) is sure and firm, and reaches into the interior of the veil. 
Wrongly does Carpzov (and so also Reuss) construe all these words with 
mv (se. éArida). For, in order to render this possible, éyouev must have re- 
ceived its place only after 7c wuyje, in such wise that d¢ dyxvpav rie Woxne 
should admit of being separated by commas from that which precedes and 
follows. Equally inadmissible is it, however, when Abresch, Bohme, 


1With Oecumenius, Camerarius, Cameron, 
Seb. Schmidt, Heinrichs, Bleek, Maier, Hof- 
mann, and others. 


4Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Maier. 
5 With Grotius, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, 
Peirce, Limborch, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kui- 


2Luther, Schulz, Stuart, Bleek, Conybeare, 
Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and others. 

3 Wolf, Tholuck, de Wette, Alford, Kurtz, 
Ewald, al. 


noel, Klee, Bloomfield, Alford, Hofmann, and 
others. 
6See Wetstein, Kypke, and Kuinoel ad loc, 
7 Abresch, Dindorf, Bloomfield, and others, 


548 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Bleek, Bloomfield, and others take only daogaA7 re kai BeBaiay along with 
ayxvpav, and then refer back eicepyouévyy eig Td EodTEpov Tov KaTaTeTaopaToc tO 
qv (se. éArvida). For although the figure of an anchor reaching on high, 
instead of penetrating into the depths, is an incongruous one, yet meta- 
phors are never to be pressed, and in our passage the choice of the ex- 
pression eisépyecbar ei¢ Td éoTepov points to the retention of the figure of 
the anchor, as well as the closely uniting re... nai... xaito the inti- 
mate coherence of the three characteristics —«ararérasua] [LX d 6.] with 
the LXX. usually (Ex. xxvi. 31-35, xxvii. 21; Lev. xxi. 23, xxiv. 3; Num. 
iv. 5, al.), in the N. T. always (x. 20; Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke 
xxiii. 45) of the second (ix. 3), or innermost curtain of the temple, the 
curtain before the Most Holy Place (131517)..—7r0 éoérepov tov Katarerdopa- 
toc] the interior of the veil, 7. e. that which is the interior with respect to the 
veil, or exists within the same, thus behind it. Designation of the Most 
Holy Place. Comp. Ex. xxvi. 33; Lev. xvi. 2, 12,15.-.The Most Holy 
Place is spoken of as a symbol of heaven, where God is enthroned 
in His glory, and at His right hand is enthroned the exalted Christ. 

Ver. 20. Close of the digression made from v. 11 onwards, and apt re- 
turn to v. 10.—ézov] whither. Inexact, as Luke ix. 57, John viii. 21 f., and 
often, instead of the 670, which is never used in the N. T. (see Winer, p. 
439 [E. T. 472]); yet more significant than the latter, since it contains, in 
addition to the notion of having entered, the additional notion of remain- 
ing.—pddpouoc] as harbinger. The expression, in the N. T. only here, 
characterizes Christ as the first member in a series, thus glances at the 
fact that those who believe in Him shall attain to the Most Holy Place. 
Comp. John xiv. 2, 3.—izép judv] inour interest, or for our eternal welfare, 
namely, to obtain pardon for us (ix. 12), to represent us in the presence of 
God (ix. 24), anfl to open up for us an entrance into heaven itself (x. 19f.). 
irép juav is to be construed, not with xpédpouoc (Heinrichs, B6hme, Tholuck, 
Ebrard, and others), but (as already the Peshito) with sio7A#ev—In that 
which follows the emphasis rests upon cata tyv Taéiv MedAyroedéx 
(Bohme, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Hofmann), which on that account is 
preposed ; not upon ei¢ rév aiéva (Bleek, Woerner), which latter, on the 
contrary, as an additional note of definition is derived only from the 
Kara THyv TaEW MeAyio. 


1Comp. also Philo, de vita Mosis, iii. p. 669 667 C (II. p. 148): é« 5¢ trav abtay 76 Te Kata 
B (with Mangey, II. p. 150): ev d¢ TO wedopiw méTac.a Kat To Acyoumevov KaAUL MA KaTETKEVE- 


TOV TETTAPWY KAL TEVTE KLOVWY, OTEP EGTL KUPLWS Gero’ TO ev Elow KaTa TOUS Téegoapas Kiovas, w 
eimety mpovaov, eipyoumevov dvolw Vpacpnact, TO émuxpUmTynTac TO aduvtov’ To & c~w KaTAa To¥s 
meéev e€vdov dv kadeitat KaTtaTwéTacpwa, WEVTE K.T.A, 


te 8 extos mpocayopevetar KaAvuma. Ibid. p. 


NOTES. 549 


Norres py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LVII. Vv. 1-3. 


(a) The question which is suggested by Liinem., at the beginning of his note 
on these verses, is one respecting which the most able scholars have taken 
opposite sides. The possibility of both explanations should be acknowledged, 
and the considerations on both sides should be fairly presented and weighed. In 
favor of the view, which makes the verses contain an exhortation to the readers 
to press forward in their Christian life to higher things, the following arguments 
may be urged. 1. The special point of vv. 12-14 is the fact, that the readers have 
not advanced as they should have done. The exhortation, that they should now 
move onward, is the most natural thing to follow. 2. The word used to describe 
the condition in which the readers now are, is v7/7coc ; that in which they should be, 
is TéAcor. It was more natural, it would seem, to exhort them to press on to TeAecérne, 
than to propose to go on himself, while they were yet vy7vov, to discuss a theme 
appropriate to those who had become ré/evor. 3. The thought presented in vy. 
4-6 is that of the danger which threatened, in case the readers should fall away 
from their Christian position, and the fact of this danger is made a reason for 
what is said in vv. 1-3. But this fact is not adapted to such a purpose, if those 
verses merely set forth a proposal to treat of the Melchisedek priesthood, 
rather than repentance, while it is peculiarly fitted to be a ground of moral 
exhortation to the readers. 4. The illustration drawn from productive and 
unproductive land in vv. 7, 8, can only be applied to growth in character and 
progress in Christian development. 5. When the writer proceeds to speak hope- 
fully of the readers, in vv. 9 ff, he refers to their faith and love, and urges them 
to press on in hope. 6. In addition to these points belonging to the detail of 
the chapter, there is another consideration of great weight, which seems to the 
writer of this note almost decisive—namely, the fact that ch. vi., as stated in 
Note LVI i, contains the common exhortation of the epistle—not to apostatize, but to 
go forward—as founded upon the present portion of the argument (Christ’s Mel. priest- 
hood). This common exhortation of the epistle, however, is always addressed to 
the readers, and has reference to their moral life. 

The arguments in favor of the other view are, 1. that tovjoouev of ver. 3 is 
quite appropriate as a statement that the author will proceed to discuss the 
higher theme, but seems unsuitable, and not to be expected, if the reference is 
to an exhortation to grow in Christian life, addressed to those who were still 
vamiot When they ought to be réAecor. This is the strongest point on this side of 
the question. Liinem., indeed, defends the reading tovjowuev. But, in the first 
place, this reading has the majority of the best authorities against it, and is 
rejected by Tisch., Treg., Lachm., W. and H.; and, in the second place, even if 
the subjunctive be read, such a peculiar repetition of the exhortation appears 
antecedently improbable. 2. The words katafadAduevor x.7.2., present a certain 
difficulty as connected with making the words a moral exhortation, for these 
persons had already begun the Christian life, and had thus already laid the 
foundation, and vy. 4-6 seem to indicate that the writer was not contemplating a 
second beginning. On the other hand, if vv. 1, 2 are applied to a discourse upon 
higher subjects, as distinguished from lower, this participle might easily be used. 
3. Although the thought of vv. 12-14 is of Christian development, there is a 


550 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


special reference in those verses to the difficulty resulting from the vymwe con- 
dition in the matter of apprehending the higher truths, and the whole passage 
is introduced by, and subordinate to, a declaration as to the difficulty of un- 
folding the subject of the Melchisedek priesthood. 

(b) With reference to individual words and phrases in these verses, it may be 
remarked :—1. 6:6 refers to the verses which immediately precede. If ¢epoueda 
k.7.2., is a moral exhortation, 6:é refers to the fact that the readers have not pro- 
gressed in their Christian life as far as they ought, considering the time which 
had elapsed since their conversion. If gep. is a word expressing the desire and 
purpose of the writer to discuss the higher subjects, 6/6 apparently has reference to 
the fitness that the Christian, who has been long in the new life, should turn his 
thoughts to these things.—2. a70 vexpov épywv. The word vexpa here and in ix. 
14 is best explained by deW. and Thol., as “die nicht aus rechter Lebenskraft 
hervorgegangen sind.” This view corresponds with that of Bleek, Alford: “dead 
i.e. devoid of life and power,” and others. Grimm says, wi et fructu carentia. 
Liinem. ; in themselves vain and. fruitless—3. That the view of Liinem., respecting 
Bartiouav diay is correct, is rendered probable by the fact that baptism is 
everywhere connected with faith, as belonging to the beginning of the Christian 
life, and by the fact that, as the whole Christian course moves in the sphere of 
teaching (comp., didaoxaio, didacxew, v.12), it is improbable that the writer 
would speak of teaching, or of the baptism of teaching, as one of the elementary 
things. His view with respect to the reference of éruJécewe yecpov to the laying 
on of hands which was connected with reception into the full communion of 
the church, and the dependence of this and the following genitive phrases, as 
well as of Batriouor, on didayie, is, also, to be accepted—4. If we read rocjoopev 
in ver. 8, and consider ver. 1 as containing a moral exhortation, we must regard 
the author as adding to his exhortation an expression of confidence—in some 
measure kindred to that in vv. 9 ff—that the readers will press forward. The 
sentence, however, becomes parenthetical under these circumstances, for yap of 
ver. 4 must be connected with the exhortation. _ If we read rocgfowuev, this verb is 
a repetition, in substance, of depoueda, The édavrep clause is better adapted to 
the future Tovjoouev, and it must be‘admitted that it favors the application of 
rome. to the writer’s purpose. with reference to his own discourse. 


LVIII. Vv. 4-8. 


(a) With respect to these verses the following points may be noticed. 1. The 
emphatic expressions which are used and the repetition of substantially the 
same idea under so many forms—once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, 
made partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God and the powers 
of the age to come—prove that the writer had in mind persons who had actually 
entered upon the Christian life. 2. He supposes the case of the falling away of 
such persons. 8. He says that, if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them 
again to repentance. 4. The illustration given in vv. 7, 8 must be regarded as 
conveying the author’s meaning in the verses which it is intended to illustrate. 
5. The kindred passage x. 26, 27, is so similar in its thought to the present 
verses, that it may be properly regarded as further expressing the writer’s idea of 
the subject presented. 


NOTES. Sal 


The points thus mentioned may suggest certain conclusions, or possible infer- 
ences. 1. As to the bearing of the passage on the doctrine of the perseverance of 
the saints—it must be admitted that it cannot be cited among the proof-texts 
establishing that doctrine. Whether it can be reconciled with the doctrine, as 
applying to all actual cases of those who become Christians, will depend on the 
question whether the writer means to present the matter only in a hypothetical 
way, or to convey the idea that there are instances in which apostasy really 
occurs. The determination of the probabilities in respect to this question may, 
perhaps, both justify and require the examination of passages which are to be 
found in other parts of the N. T. 2. As to the question whether the persons here 
alluded to are those who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, it may be 
remarked (x) that the sin against the Holy Ghost, so far as the indications of the 
passages in the Gospels, where it is mentioned, are concerned, involves a bitter 
hostility to Jesus (as indicated by the Pharisees’ charge, that He cast out the 
demons by Beelzebub), which is not clearly set forth, either here, or even in x. 26, 27 ; 
(y) that that sin is spoken of in the N. T. as committed by persons who were not 
Christians ; and (unless the sin 7pd¢ Yavarov, 1 John vy. 16, is to be understood as 
meaning this, which is, to say the least, open to question) is spoken of only as com- 
mitted by such persons; (z) that the purpose for which, apparently, the writer 
introduces these verses—namely, to warn the readers against falling by pointing 
to the dangers consequent upon it—makes it probable, that he intended to present 
the case of those who fell as they were themselves likely to fall, unless they arrested 
their course; whereas he does not intimate that they were moving on in a heaven- 
daring way, but rather were allowing themselves to drift away from the truth by 
carelessness and neglect, or by an over-estimate of the Jewish system. So far as 
the illustration in vv. 7, 8 goes, it may be added, the non-production of fruit is 
placed in a parallelism with falling away—3. With regard to the word adivarov, 
two suggestions may be offered :—(x) The corresponding passage in the tenth 
chapter says: “there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins,” which seems to mean, 
that there is no other and further provision for redemption. (y) There would 
- seem to be an antecedent improbability that a man who falls away, should be 
placed absolutely beyond the power of regaining the blessing by renewed 
repentance and faith. In view of these two considerations, the question may 
be raised whether the writer does not mean by advvarov simply what he means 
by the words in x. 26, and whether his thought, in both cases, is not, that, if the 
way which Christ has opened is left, no other way except or beyond this will 
open. The suggestion of punishment which both passages distinctly present 
must be borne in mind, however, in the consideration of such points. 

(6) The several phrases, gwrvobévrac x.7.A., have apparently the same general 
purpose, and present the same general idea under different forms. With respect 
to two of these phrases, it may be remarked that dwpead apparently means the 
gift of grace (comp. Rom. y. 15. 17), and that the duvayere wéAAovroc aidvoc are the 
miraculous spiritual gifts, or powers, of every kind, which belonged to the Chris- 
tian dispensation as the readers knew it. The expression aiav péAAwy is very 
probably used, because it had already been spoken of as the age or world of Christ 
and His people, in ii. 5.—(c) The words y7 7 utca.... vérdv, kai of ver. 7 are, 
doubtless, to be supplied in thought before éxdépovca of ver. 8. It was the land 
which had experienced the gifts of God (the abundant rain) and yet brought forth 
only thorns and thistles, which was cursed. 


552 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


LIX. Vv. 9-12. 


(a) dé of ver. 9 is however—the turn of the thought, at this point, being in the 
line of correcting a possible misapprehension: In saying this which I have said 
of those who fall away, I do not mean that you are of this number and are to meet 
their fate—(b) It will be noticed that kpeioocova and éyoueva are united under 
one article. They refer, therefore, to the same things, which are described as both 
better and pertaining to salvation. This common reference of the two—the latter 
evidently designating the future reward—and the fact that the thought of the 
preceding verses, with which this verse is immediately connected, is of the fate 
awaiting those who fall, prove that the writer is speaking in these words only of 
the objective side, as Liinem calls it, not of the subjective side, of the heavenly 
reward, i. e., not of character and life. The «ai which unites the two words is 
like the xai which we sometimes find in Paul’s writings, adding a more specific to 
a more general word, and answering to our expression that is to say: “ Things that 
are better and, to explain the word more definitely, pertain to salvation. I am 
persuaded that you will not be rejected, but saved.’ The rendering of A. V., and 
R. V., may possibly lead the reader to suppose that the writer had two different 
classes of things in mind.—(c) yap of ver. 10 introduces, as the ground of the 
writer’s confidence, that his readers will attain the reward of salvation, the fact 
that God is righteous. It is evident, however, that the righteousness of God is not 
here referred to as suggesting the idea of salvation by works; for the doctrine of 
this author, as truly as that of Paul, is, that men are saved by faith. The reference 
must be to the fact that God, having promised to reward those who believe for their 
Christian living and action, will not unrighteously fail to fulfill His word. Were 
He to forget their work and love, it would, in view of His promise, be: unright- 
eous. The words dixavoc and ad:xoc are to be understood, generally, in the N. T., 
in the sense of righteous and unrighteous, rather than of just and unjust. The latter 
word is used in the same larger. sense here, involving the idea of not being con- 
formed to right i.e. to what one ought to be or do; but in the connection there is, 
apparently, a suggestion of the thought of a kind of injustice in relation to those 
who had depended on His promise.—(d) The toi xérov of T. R., which precedes 
THC ayarne’ is undoubtedly to be omitted, and the latter expression is added by kai 
in tov épyov iuev for the purpose of bringing out distinctly the relation which the 
work had to God—it was an exhibition of love towards Him, (hence the words 
évedeiEaotle ei¢ TO bvoua avtov). ‘To forget the épyov, therefore, would involve an 
unrighteousness on the part of God—a failure to do what His promise to His 
people bound Him to do.. Comp. also ver. 13 ff—(e) The work, which was the 
manifestation of love to God, consisted in their past and present rendering of 
service to their fellow-Christians. The representation, which is frequently made 
to the N. T., of God and Christ as experiencing or feeling what is experienced 
or felt by believers, is found in this passage ; and in connection with such passages 
as this, we may get some light with respect to the interpretation of statements 
like those in Col. i. 24. See notes on that passage—(f) dé of ver. 11 is not, 
apparently now, as Liinem. renders it, nor and, as in R. V.; but it has somewhat 
of adversative force, as suggesting that, while they had done well in the line of 
love, there was another line in which they had not yet as faithfully fulfilled the 
duty of the Christian life. In connection with this movement of the thought, it 
becomes plain that by the same zeal or diligence the writer means the same which 


NOTES. 553 


they had shown in the line of love and work. The other line, in which he would 
have them press forward, was that of hope and stedfast endurance.—(q) mpéc, 
with a view to, as looking towards, the full assurance of hope. The question 
whether 7Aypogopia means full asswrance or fullness arises in every passage where 
the word occurs. The indications of this Epistle, in its general thought, seem to 
favor the former meaning, for we are led by these indications to the conclusion 
that the persons addressed were losing confidence in the Christian system, in their 
Christian faith and hope, and that the writer desired them to gain full assurance, 
and not to fall entirely away. On the general question as to this word, the notes 
of Bleek on this passage, and Lightfoot on Col. ii. 2 may be compared.—(h) that 
pakpofuuia of ver. 12, and waxpobvujoac of ver. 15 have a sense kindred to that 
which is elsewhere expressed, in the substantive form, by izouovy, is made evident 
by the demands of the passage. 


LX. Vv. 13-20. 


(a) The writer, by way of encouragement to the readers to yield to his ex- 
hortation, gives in these verses two facts, on the ground of which they may 
have confidence that, if they stedfastly endure, they will receive the promised 
reward. These facts are both derived from the O. T., as his proofs throughout 
the entire epistle rest upon these older writings to which, as they were looking 
towards Judaism, the readers were turning with a renewal of their early trust. 
They are, 1. The experience of Abraham—he patiently endured and in con- 
sequence thereof obtained the promise (vv. 13-15); and 2. The oath of God, which 
was added to His promise (vv. 16-20). 

It will be noticed that, in the development of the thought, these two things 
are united in vv. 138-15. Ina letter so truly Pauline in many of its characteristics, 
it is natural that there should be such an intermingling of the two, since the 
promise which included the oath was given to Abraham, and the author’s wish 
was evidently to make an historical reference to Abraham’s case. But it will, 
also, be noticed by the careful reader, that the emphasis in vy. 13-15 is laid upon 
the statement of the 15th verse, and that, while the oath is alluded to in vv. 13, 
14, the development of the thought respecting it, as bearing upon the point in 
discussion, is found wholly in vv. 16-20. There can be little doubt, therefore, that 
the writer intended, in his argument, to make these two points co-ordinate, and 
to present each with its independent force. If the arrangement of the verses 
had corresponded precisely with the movement of the leading thoughts, the 
order would have been ver. 13 a, ver. 15, and then y. 13 6, 14, united with ver. 
16 ff—the construction of the sentences being slightly changed by reason of the 
change of order. 

(6) With reference to the individual words and phrases, the following points 
may be noticed :—1. The purpose of the argument, as indicated above, accounts for 
the emphatic position of ’ABpaau in ver. 13. The case of Abraham is selected, 
both because the promise was made to him and, also, because of the fact, on the 
ground of which Paul, in his epistles, carries back his O. T. arguments to 
Abraham’s history, namely, that he was the one with whom the old covenant was 
made, and the one on whom the Jews fixed their thoughts—2. The adding of 
the oath to the promise is suggested in this first statement; and, as Liinem. 
remarks, the aorist participle étayyecAduevoc is to be accounted for in this way: 


554 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


after He had promised, (Gen. xii, xvii, xviii), God confirmed the promise by an 
oath (Gen. xxii. 16, 17, the passage here cited).—3. ov7w refers to the fact stated 
in vy. 13 6. 14, and thus is one of the words which belong to the arrangement 
adopted by the author, as indicated above—4. The “obtaining” alluded 
to in ver. 15 is best explained as that which Abraham actually realized, 
but which is viewed, not simply in itself, but in its foreshadowing and 
assurance of the future.—5, jaxpotuuyqoac signifies that the jaxpofuuia was both 
antecedent to and, in one sense, the cause of the “obtaining.”—6, 7 érayyeiia 
in this place (ver.15), as also in ix. 15, x. 36, xi. 13, etc., has the sense of the 
fulfillment of the promise. Comp. Gal. iii. 14 and some other passages. 

(¢) The object of vv. 16-20 a, is evidently to show that the oath of God 
insures absolute certainty of the result. The development of the thought here 
involves five points:—1l. With men an oath is the highest and final thing in the 
way of confirming what they say. 2. The force of the oath lies in the fact that 
it is sworn by the one greater than themselves i. e. by God. 3. God, in order 
to give the strongest emphasis to His promise, adopts the same course with men ; 
He gives His oath, and, as He is Himself the greater one, He swears by Himself. 
4, Those who lay hold of the hope which God has revealed, have, therefore, two 
things on which to rest, the promise and the oath, both of which are immutable, 
and in both of which there can be no falsehood. Their hope, therefore, will be to 
them as an anchor to the soul. 5. And since this is a hope entering within the 
veil, Jesus—who, as leading the sons of God to glory, has, first among them all, 
been crowned (ch. ii)—has, also, as their forerunner passed within the veil, in 
His priestly character, for these and on their behalf. Thus naturally and easily 
the line of the discourse is brought once more to the priesthood ; the digression 
y. 11-14, which passed into the common exhortation vi. 1 ff, is brought to its 
close; and with the words of ver. 20 b, which repeat very nearly those of v. 10, 
the subject of Christ’s Melchisedek-priesthood is again set forth. Chap. vii then 
proceeds with the discussion of this subject. : 

(d) As to the words and phrases in vv. 16-20, we may remark :—1. yap of ver. 
16 belongs, in thought with ver. 13 }, and like ovrw of ver. 15, might probably 
have been omitted or changed for some other construction, had the arrange- 
ment of the sentences been according to the succession of the main thoughts.— 
2. R. V. renders avriAoyiag (ver. 16) dispute, but the suggestion of Bleek quoted 
by Liinem., that the context points, not to a contention between God and man, 
but to the trustworthiness of a-divine declaration, is of much force, and it seems 
quite probable that the word here means contradiction. Dr. Angus, in Schaff’s 
Pop. Comm., gives the sentence thus: “and for confirmation, when any statement 
of theirs is contradicted, the oath is final.”—3. Liinem. regards BovArje (ver. 17) 
as meaning God’s decree to make all believers blessed through the seed of 
Abraham. This may, not improbably, be the correct view, but it may be that 
the word has a somewhat more general meaning—will or counsel, in general—4. 
The construction of kpatjoat (ver. 18) is uncertain. But as it may depend on 
Kataguyévtec; as the phrase oi katapvydvtec seems to call for some word which 
may complete its idea; and as tapdkAnov, if it means consolation, does not require 
any such additional word, or, on the other hand, if it means encouragement, may 
find one easily in the thought of the spatijoa already introduced with oi xar., 
it is probable that the author intended. to connect it with the participle—5. 
éAri¢ of ver. 18 is, apparently, to be taken in the subjective sense :—hope whieh 


NOTES. 555 


the Christian may have in his soul, rather than the objective :—the thing hoped for, 
because of the descriptive words in ver. 19 which characterize the former. This 
subjective hope, however, is viewed, as faith is sometimes viewed in the Pauline 
Epistles, in an objective light, and is thus made dependent on the verb KpaTyoat, 
Thus, also, it has the participle zpoxeuévyc united with it—it is said to be set 
before us as something which we may lay hold of. This view of éAzic satisfies 
the demands of the entire sentence of vv. 18, 19 better than that of Liinem., 
who makes the hope merely subjective, and gives to poxeu., the meaning lying 
at hand, or that of Alford and others, who regard it as equivalent to the thing hoped 
for, or even that of Bleek, deW., Thol., and others, who consider the meaning 
to be the hope of the things which lie before us, rie éAmidoc Tov Tpokeuévov,.—b. The 
closing words of ver. 19, which are descriptive of the hope viewed under the 
figure of an anchor, easily lead to those of ver. 20 and, in connection with the 
latter, form the transition to ch. vii. With 7d éo@repov tov KataneTaouatoc the 
more particular reference of the writer’s language to the old tabernacle 
begins, and, by these words and zpddpoyoc, he shows that he is now passing from 
the thoughts of the earlier section of the epistle (ch. ii. ete.) to those of the later 
part. 


556 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


CHAPTER VII. 


Ver. 1. Instead of tot bpiorov, Elz. has only ipiorov, Against ABCDE 
K L &, 23, 44, 46, 48, al. pl., Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. mult——0o cvvavricac] 
Lachm. and Alford, after A B C (corr.) D E K 8, 17, 117, al.: 6¢ cuvavrijoac, 
Notwithstanding the strong support of authorities, manifest error, arising from the 
reading together of the article and the initial letter of the participle—Ver. 4. 
Instead of the Recepta @ kai dexatynv, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 read, after B D* 
E* Vulg. (Amiatin. Toletan.) It. Copt. Basm. Syr., merely  dexatyv. Certainly 
«at is not indispensable, and might be regarded as a later gloss from ver. 2. But 
with quite as much probability it may be supposed that it was added by the 
author himself, the words of ver. 2 being still present to his mind. It is there- 
fore, since it nas in its favor the considerable attestation by A C D*** E** K L 
&, by, as it appears, all the cursives, by the Vulgate (also Demidoy. and Harlej.), 
Syr. Philonex. al., by Chrys. Theodoret, Damase. al., Aug. Bede, with Griesb. 
Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, to be retained.—Ver. 6. 
The article +é6v before ’AGpadu is deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and 
Alford, after B C D* 8* 23, 57, 109, al. In favor of the omission pleads the very 
sparing use made of the article before proper names in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
the article as a rule being placed only where, as in xi. 17, the perspicuity of the 
discourse imperatively demanded it.—Ver. 9. In place of the received Aevi we 
have here, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 2, to write Aevic, after A (Aewc) B C* 
N*X* (Aeverc). In the ed. vii. and viii. Tisch. writes: Aeveic.—Ver. 10. Elz.: 6 
MedAycioedé. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Alford, after B C* D* 8, 73, 118, al., Chrys.: 
MedAytoedéx, The rejection of the article is to be approved on the same grounds 
as in ver, 6.—Ver. 11. The Recepta. éx’ aith vevowovétyro (defended by 
Reiche) has decisive witnesses against it. Instead of é7’ avrg is ém avTae 
(approved by Grotius, placed on the inner margin by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* E* 8, 17, 31, 46, al., Cyril; instead 
of vevouobétyto is vevomodérynras (already approved by Camerarius and Grotius, 
adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required byA B C D* 8, 17, 47, 73, al., 
Cyril—Ver. 13. zpooéoyyxev] Tisch. 1, after A C, 17, al.: mpooéoyxev, Com- 
mended to notice by Griesb. also. Rightly, however, do Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 2, 
7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 56, note 9), prefer the 
Recepta tpocéoyynkev. In favor of this pleads, besides the yet stronger attesta- 
tion (BD EK L®, Oecum. al.), the paronomasia with peréoyyKev, consonant 
with the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews.—Ver. 14. Elz.: oidév rept 
iepwobtrnc. But A BC* D* E®, 17, 47, al., It. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Arm, Cyr. 
Chrys. (codd.) have: tepi tepéwv oddév. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, 
Tisch. and Alford. epi lepwotrye ‘is a glossematic elucidation.—Ver. 16. Instead 
of the Recepta capxixic, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford have adopted 
capkivye, after A B C* D* L.& (also H in the title), many min. and Fathers. 
Rightly, capxivy¢ might easily be changed into capxcxy7e by transcribers, 





CHAP. vir. 1. 557 


since capKiKé¢ is an adjective of very frequent recurrence in the N. T., cdpxivoc 
a rare one.—Ver. 17. paptupeita] Elz.: waptvpei. Against preponderating 
testimony (A B D* E* 8, 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Basm. Slav. Cyr. Chrys. 
Theophyl.)—Ver. 21. After aiéva Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bloom- 
field, Reiche add once more: kata t7v TaEtv MeAyeoedéx. Deleted by Bleek, 
Tisch. and Alford, after B C, 17, 80, Vulg. Sahid. Basm. Arm. Ambr. (?) Bede. 
Rejected also by Delitzsch. But without sufficient ground. For the words are 
found in A D E K L 8*** Tt. Syr. utr. Copt. al., with Chrys. Theodoret, al., and 
the omission of them is to be explained by the fact that immediately after the 
same (ver. 22) the discourse is continued afresh with xara; the eye of the tran- 
seriber might thus easily wander from the first kaTd to the second «ata. Also 
for 8* there was found in the twofold «kata the occasion for overlooking not only 
kata tHv Tagwv MeAyioedéx, but in addition to this likewise ei¢ tov aidva—Ver. 
22. rooovrov]. So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield. But the weighty 
authority of A BC D* &* Athan. (cod.) al. decides in favor of the form of the 
word preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, tocovro,—Ver. 23. 
Recepta: yeyovdoteg iepetc. So also Tisch. 2,7, and 8. As better attested, 
however (A C D E, Cyr. [twice] Chrys. [ms.]), the order of words: ‘epei¢ 
yeyovérec, is to be preferred, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Delitzsch, and 
Alford.—Ver. 26. Elz.: étpezev. More correctly, however, Griesb. Lachm. 
Bleek, Scholz (?), Tisch. and Alford, after A B D E, Syr. utr. Arab. Erp. Euseb. : 


Kal éEmpeTrer, 


Vv. 1-10.! While the author now in reality passes over to the work of 
developing the high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, proper 
to Christ, and consequently of illustrating upon every side the pre- 
eminence of the same above the Levitical high-priesthood, he dwells first 
of all upon the person of Melchisedec himself, in that, following the thread 
of the Scripture narrative, he brings vividly before his readers the exalt- 
edness of Melchisedec’s position, and draws their attention to a threefold 
superiority of Melchisedec over the Levitical priests. [On Vv. 1-3, see 
Note LXI., pages 577-579. ] 

Vv. 1-3. [LXI a.] Elucidation of xara tiv ratw MeaAyioedéix apyreped¢ 
yevouevoc cic Tov aiava, Vi. 20, by a delineation of the character of Melchis- 
edec. [LXI 6.] Vv. 1-3 form a single proposition, in which péve: is the 
tempus finitum. [LXI c-h.] The characterization of Melchisedec combines 
in the first half (Baovrete Yadju... guépicev ’"ABpadu, ver. 2) the historic 
traits which are afforded of him in Genesis (xiv. 18-20), while in the second 
half (xpérov pév «.7.2.) the author himself completes the picture of 
Melchisedec, in reasoning from that historic delineation.—GaciAedve Yarju] 
king of Salem. By Salem is understood, on the part of the Targumists, 
Josephus, Antig. 1.10.2, the majority of the Church Fathers, Grotius, 
Drusius, Owen, Michaelis, Gesenius, von Bohlen, Winer, Realworterb. I. 
2 Aufl. p. 95, Stuart, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Knobel, Bisping, 
Delitzsch, Auberlen, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others, Jerusalem. On the 


1¢. A. Auberlen, “ Melchisedek’s ewiges Leben und Priesterthum Hebr. 7” (Stud. u. Krit. 
1857, H. 3, p. 453 ff.). 


558 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


other hand, Primasius, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Whitby, Cellarius, Reland, 
Rosenmiiller, Bleek (see, however, at ver. 2), Tuch, Ewald, Alford, Maier, 
and others think of the place Sa%eip, mentioned John iii. 28, situated 
eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis. The latter was, as we learn from 
Jerome (Ep. 126, ad Evagrium), the view already espoused in his day by 
the “eruditissimi” among the Hebrews, in opposition to “Josephus et 
nostri omnes,” as accordingly also it was thought that the ruins of the 
palace of Melchisedec were still to be shown at the last-named place in 
the time of Jerome. This YaA4eipu, mentioned John iii. 23, has, more- 
over, been held by some recent expositors, as Bleek and Alford, to be 
likewise identical with the 2a24u, Judith iv.4. More correct, however, 
is the first-named view. For, besides the earlier name Jebus for Jerusa- 
lem (Judg. xix. 10, al.), occurs also the early name Salem (Ps. Ixxvi. 3 [2]), 
and the narrative in Genesis (xiv. 17 ff.) poimts unmistakeably to the 
southern part of the land.’—ieped¢ tov Geod rod inpiorov] priest of God, the 
Most High. In the monotheistic sense, as in Genesis, vid. ibid. ver. 22—< 
ovvarthoag “ABpadp x.7.A.] who went to meet Abraham when he was returning 
from the smiting of the kings (Gen. xiv. 12 ff.), and blessed him.—xai evaoyhoac 
aitév] Gen. xiv. 19, 20. Wrongly is it alleged by Heinrichs that edocyeiv 
denotes only: gratulari de victoria tam splendida. 

Ver. 2. To whom also Abraham portioned out the tenth of all (sc. that he 
had gained as booty; comp. é rv axpodiwiwrv, ver. 4).—rpérov pév Epynver- 
éuevog Bacided¢ dixatocibvyc] he who first, interpreted (i.e. if one translates 
his Hebrew name pay-372 into Greek), is King of Righteousness.2, The 
author of the epistle, however, following more closely the sense of the 
Hebrew words, renders the name by BaaiAei¢ dixavooivyc (instead of ren- 
dering it BaciAed¢ dixatoc, as Josephus does), and thereby brings out more 
clearly the part sustained by Melchisedec as a typé of Christ, inasmuch as 
the latter is not only Himself righteous (comp. Zech. ix. 9; Jer. xxiii. 5), 
but also the mediatorial author of righteousness for others. Comp. 1 Cor. 
i. 80; Jer. xxiii. 6; Mal. iv. 2; Dan. ix. 24.—érevra d? kai Baoidede Largu, 6 
éorw Baoiaede eiphyvync] and then also king of Salem, which is (denotes) king of 
peace. Comp. with regard to Christ as our peace and peace-bringer, Eph. 
ii. 14, 15, 17; Rom. v. 1; also Isa. ix.6, 7—0 éorw] corresponds to the 
Epunvevouevoc of the previous clause. There is no reason for taking Salem, 
with B6hme and Bleek, after the precedent given by Petrus Cunaeus, de 
Rep. Hebraeorum, iii. 8, as not being the name of a place at all, but 
Baoirevc Sadju together as forming the further name of the man, since the 
author of the epistle might discover a typical reference to Christ not only 
in the personal name of Melchisedec, but also in the name of the state 
over which he ruled as king and prophet. The author, for the rest, 
interprets the name of the place as though not bow (peaceful) but plow 


1Comp. specially Knobel, Genesis, 2 Aufi., Bell. Jud. vi. 10: 0 8€ mp@tos xticas (‘ lepocd- 
Leipz. 1860, p. 149 f. Avpa) Fv Xavavaiwy Suvacrys, © TH TaTpiw 

2Comp. Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 2: MeAxuce- yAdoon KAndeis Bactdeds Sixacos’ hy yap oy 
séxns, onuatver 5€ rovtTo BaciAeds Sixatos.— TOLOUTOS. 


CHAP. Vil. “2,fa. 559 


(peace) had been written in the Hebrew,—a mode of rendering in whicn 
Philo had already preceded him.! 

Ver. 3. ’Ardtwp, auftwp, ayeveardyntoc] without father, without mother, 
without pedigree, i.e. of whom neither father, nor mother, nor pedigree 
stands recorded in Holy Scripture. This is the usual interpretation of the 
words, which has been the prevalent one in the church from early times 
to the present. Less natural, and only in repute here and there, is the 
explanation: who possessed neither father nor mother, etc., according to 
which the sacred writer must have recognized in Melchisedec a higher, 
superhuman being, who had only for a time assumed a human form. 
The latter view was taken by Origen and Didymus, who would maintain 
that Melchisedec is to be regarded as an angel; in like manner the unknown 
authority in Jerome, ad EHvagr.; Hilary, Quaestt. in V. T. quaest. 109, and 
the Egyptian Hieracas in Epiph. Haeres. 67, who saw in him an ensar- 
cosis of the Holy Ghost; as also the Melchisedecites, a section of the 
Theodotians, who described him as peydAyv twa divawv Ociav, surpassing 
in exaltedness even Christ Himself, since Christ appeared after the like- 
ness of Melchisedec ; finally, single individuals in the orthodox church, in 
Epiphanius, Haer. 55.7; as also afterwards, P. Molinaeus, Vates, iv. 11 
sq.; P. Cunaeus, l.c.; J. C. Hottinger, de Decimis Judaeorum, p. 15; 
d’Outrein, Starck, and others, who supposed that in Melchisedec the Son of 
God Himself had appeared in human form. This whole method of inter- 
pretation has against it the fact that ayeveaAdéyyroc—for not ayévyroc is 
placed—can be understood without violence only of the neglect to cite 
the genealogical table of Melchisedec in the narrative of the Book of 
Genesis [comp. ver. 6]; and a@ratwp, auAtwp must be taken con- 
formably with the elucidatory dayeveadéynroc, thus are likewise to be ex- 
plained merely of the father and mother being passed over unnamed in 
the historic account, not of their actual non-existence. The characteris- 
tics andtup, auytwop, dyeveadkoyyntoc, moreover, are to be referred— 
SINCE adwomwpévoc dé 7H vid Tov Heod cannot yet be brought into corres- 
pondence therewith—only to Melchisedec, without our being obliged to 
seek for them a special point of comparison with Christ, as is done by 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Jac. Cappellus, Bisping, a/. (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in applying the 
axatop to Christ’s humanity, the dyjrop to His divinity, and the ayevea- 
Aéyntoc either likewise to His divinity or to His New Testament high 
priesthood.2—By means of aratop, auAtop, ayeveadrdynrtoc, Melchise- 
dec appears as presenting a contrast to the Levitical priests, since in the 
case of these scrupulous attention was paid to the descent.—The expres- 
sion ayeveaddynroc only here in all Greek literature.—ypjre apyiv juepov 
pare Come tédog Exov] without beginning of days and without end of life, 


1Comp. Legg. allegor. iii. 25, p. 75 (with é€oTiv ws eos’ Ex “ovo” yap yeyevyynTaL TOU Ta- 
Mangey, I. p. 102 f.): kat MeAxtoedéx Baordéa Tpos’ amatwp de ws avOpwmos’ ex udvns yap ETEXON 
TE THS Elpyvys—DaAnm TOVTO yap éepunveverar— KNTpOs, THs TapSévov dyus’ ayeveaddynTos ws 
iepea EavTov TeTOLNKEV O eos. eos’ ov yap xpycer yeveadoytas o e€ ayevyyntov 
8Comp. ¢. g. Theodoret: Auzjrwp wév yap  -yeyevvnuevos matpos. 


560 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


nainely, in hat nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his birth or 
his death. The statement is quite a general one. To limit it to the be- 
ginning and end of the priesthood,’ is arbitrary. Nor is the meaning of 
the words, that Melchisedec was not born in the ordinary human way, 
and, something like Enoch and Elijah, was taken up to heaven without 
experiencing death,? a sense which conflicts with the right apprehension 
of the opening words of the verse.—agwpowpévog dé TO vip Tov Beoi] on the 
contrary (therein) made entirely like unto the Son of God, namely, as type of 
the same. The words do not belong to péver lepede sig 7d diqvexéc (Peshito, 
Grotius, a/.). For with justice does Theodoret already observe: év yévro 
th lepwobvy ov Medyioedix pepiuntar tov deonétyvy Xpiotév, aan 6 deonéryc 
Xpioroc lepede ele Tov aidva Kata THY TaEw MeAyioedéx. They form, by means 
of the closely combining dé, a more precise positive defining to the nega- 
tive pujte apyiv quepov pate Cuno TéAo¢ Eyov.i—péver iepevo ei¢ TO duqveréc | 
remains priest for ever, in that, as of his end of life so also of the cessation 
of his priesthood, nothing is recorded. He remains so’ in the reality of 
his office, but only as a figure and type of Christ. Against the view of 
Auberlen (il. c. p. 497), that Melchisedec is termed an everlasting priest in 
no other sense than as, according to the Apocalypse, all the blessed in 
heaven are so, see the observations of Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
202 f., Remark. The subject, moreover, in yéver is naturally the Melchis- 
edec of Genesis, not, as Wieseler contends (Schrr. d. Univ. zu Kiel aus. 
d. J. 1860, VI. 1, p. 40): “the Melchisedec of the passage in the Psalms 
just mentioned (vi. 20), or the true antitypal Melchisedec or Messiah.” 
For it is not grammatically allowable, with Wieseler, to take the words 
Baorrede Ladju.. . adwpovspevog dé TH vim Tov Yeov as an apposition merely 
to 6 MeAyoedéx, and not to the whole expression oiro¢ 6 MeAyioedéx, and in 
connection with oiroc 6 MeAyioedéx to rest the emphasis exclusively upon 
ovroc.—el¢ Td duyveéc] of the same import as ei¢ Tov aidva, vi. 20. Comp. 
x, 124: 

Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-10, see Note L-XII., pages 579, 580.] @ewpeire] is impera- 
tive, whereby a strain is to be put on the attention for that which follows : 
but behold, namely, inwardly, 7.e. consider—ryAixoc] how great, i.e. how 
high and exalted.—oiroc @ kai dexaryv ’ABpady Edoxev «.7.A.] Resuming of 
the historic notice already adduced at the beginning of ver. 2, in order 
then further to argue from the same. By the choice and position of the 
words, however, the author brings out the 772 ixo¢ in its truth and inner 
justice. (Choice of the words axpo¥ivia and ratprapyne,—the latter 
in place of the elsewhere more usual 6 ta74p in regard to Abraham,— 
and effective placing of the characterizing title 6 ~atp:dpyn¢ at the close 
of the proposition at a far remove from the name ’ASpady.)—kai dexaryv] 
xai is not the merely copulative “also,” as ver. 2 (Hofmann), but is used 


1Cameron, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Whit- brews,” in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 2, p. 332 


by, Kuinoel, Hofmann, al. ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 
2Hunnius, Braun, Akersloot; comp. also 102 f.; Alford. 
Bleek, p. 322 ff.; Nagel: “Onthe significance . %Chrysostom: ’Adwmotwpeévos de, dyoi, To 


of Melchisedee in the Epistle to the He- vi@ TOD Feov" Kai TOV Hh OMoLOTHS ; “OTL Kat TOVTOU 


CHAP. vil. 4, 5. 561 


as giving intensity. It gives intensity, however, not to the subject (so 
Luther, Grotius, Owen, Carpzov: “Abraham himself also ”’),—for then o 
kai ’ABpadu dexatyv éduxev must have been written,—but the predicate: to 
whom Abraham gave even the tenth—axpobiria] composed of akpog and Gir, 
in the N. T. a azag Aeyouevov, denotes the uppermost of the heap, the choice 
or best thereof. The expression is most current with regard to the first- 
fruits of the harvest presented to the Godhead ; not seldom, however, is it 
used of the best, which was selected out of the spoils of war as an offering 
consecrated to the Godhead. In our passage, too, axpodina denotes not 
simply the spoils acquired by Abraham,’ but the choicest, most valuable 
articles thereof. Theophylact: && tov Aagipov tov kpeitréver Kai Tiywtépwr. 
Not that the meaning of the author is, that Abraham gave to Melchisedec 
the tenth part of the most choice objects among the booty acquired, but 
that the tithes which he presented to Melchisedec consisted of the choicest, 
most excellent portions of the booty.—6é rarpidpync] he, the patriarch. The 
sonorous name of honor rarpidpyyc, composed of ratpiad and apyq, desig- 
nates Abraham as the father of the chosen race, and ancestor of the people 
of Israel. Comp. Acts ii. 29, where David is distinguished by the same 
title of honor, and Acts vii. 8,9, where the twelve sons of Jacob are so 
distinguished. 

Vv. 5-10. Unfolding of the ryAixoc obroce «.7.4., ver. 4,in that Mel- 
chisedec is compared with the Levitical priests, and a threefold superior- 
ity of the former over the latter is pointed out. 

Vv. 5-7. First point of superiority. The Levitical priests, indeed, take 
tithes of their brethren, although these brethren, in like manner as they, 
have descended from Abraham : they have thus, it is true, a pre-eminence 
above these; but they are inferior to Melchisedec, since this man took 
tithes of Abraham himself, the common ancestor of the Jewish people, 
and blessed him. 

Ver. 5. Admission of the relatively privileged position of the Levitical 
priests.—xai] the explanatory: and certainly.—oi pév x.r.A.] preparatory 
to the adversative 6 dé «.7.4., ver. 6.—oi ék Tav vidv Aevi tv tepateiav 
ZauBdavovrec] those of the sons (descendants) of Levi who obtain the office of 
priest. For not all Levites, but only those of them who claimed lineage 
from the house of Aaron, were entitled to enter upon the priesthood. 
Comp. Ex. xxviii. 1 ff.; Num. iii. 10, 38, xvi., xviii. 1 ff, al. Mistaken is 
the opinion of Delitzsch, Maier, and Moll (in coinciding with Hofmann), 
that the é& in é Trav vidv Aevi is the causal éx of origin: “those who 
receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi, 7. e. by virture of their 
descent from Levi, in such wise that their person is not taken into 
account as such, but only in so far as they belong to this lineage.” If 
that had been intended, oi é« tay vidv Aevi dvtec kal did TovTO THY iepateiav 
AauBavovrec must have been written.—évroAjy Eyovow arodexatovv Tov Aadyv 


KGKELVOU TO TEAOS GYVOOUMEV Kal THY apXyV’ aAAG éx Tov oxVAwy Kai Aadvpwv ; Erasmus, Luther, 

TovTOV péev Tapa TO MH yeypaddat, Exeivou de Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, B6hme, Kui- 

mapa TO hy €ivar. noel, Stuart, Bloomfield, and the majority. 
190 Chrysostom: ta Aadvpa ; Oecumenius: 


36 


562 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Kata rov vouov] havea charge to tithe the people according to the law.'—kara 
tov véuov] belongs not to rov Aadv,? against which even the non-repetition 
of the article after Aaév decides; nor yet to azodexarovv,? but to évroagv 
Eyovorv.—In the closing words, tovréotw rode adeAgode aitov, Kaimep k.T.A., 
Bleek, after the example set by Bohme, erroneously finds the sense: 
“that, although they are the posterity of Abraham, the lauded patriarch, 
who are tithed by the Levitical priests, yet they are, after all, still the 
brethren of the latter, 7. e. fellow-Israelites ; which cannot be so astonish- 
ing as when Abraham himself paid the tithes to Melchisedec.” On the 
contrary, the elucidation of tov Aadyv by rovréorw roi¢ adeAgoig aitav serves 
to bring into more striking relief the singularity of the azodexarovv; since 
elsewhere only the higher receives tithes from the lower, not the equal 
from the equal (as here an Abrahamides from an Abrahamides), and this 
singularity of the azodexarovv is then yet further manifested by kaizep 
éEeAyAvbdrac éx THe dodboc ’ABpadu. The author can therefore only design, 
by means of ver. 5, to characterize the priests as primi inter pares. This 
superiority, however, in regard to their own fellow-Israelites, the author 
concedes only in order immediately after, ver. 6, to oppose to the same 
the inferiority in regard to Melchisedec.—étépyeotar éx tH¢ dopboc tivdc] So 
the LX X. render the Hebrew ‘9 yon N83", Gen. xxxv. 11; 2 Chron. vi. 9. 

Ver. 6. Notwithstanding this privileged position of the Levitical priests 
(ver. 5), Melchisedec yet occupies a far higher position.—é dé] is not to be 
taken alone, as by BOhme, Kuinoel, and Klee, and then to be supplemented 
by ry iepateiav AaBov from ver. 5; but 6 dé uy yevearoyobtpevocg é& 
avtov belongs together: Melchisedec, on the contrary, without (uj) his 
Samily or descent being derived from them, received tithes of Abraham.—é& aitav] 
refers neither to the Israelites, nor to Levi and Abraham,’ but to the vioi 
Aevi, ver. 5.—The parallel. clause, cai rov éyovta tag érayyediac evAdynxer | 
and blessed him who had the promises, serves yet further to make manifest 
the dignity and exaltedness of Melchisedec. For, by the fact that 
Abraham had received the divine promises, that his seed should be multi- 
plied, and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed (Gen. xii. 2 f,, 
xili. 14 f.), he had been already most highly favored of God. How high 
-thus must that man stand, who imparts his blessing to one already so 
highly favored, since truly—as is immediately expressly added, ver. 7— 


1Comp. Num. xviii. 20-32; Deut. xiv. 22-29 . 
Neh. x. 38, 39; de Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jiid. 


Levites. Nevertheless, however the matter 


Archdologie, 3 Aufl. p. 273 f.; Delitzsch, Tal- 
mudische Studien, XIV. Justification of Heb. 
vii. 5 (in Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. d. gesammte 
luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1863, H. 1, p. 16 ff). The 
justification consists of the attempted proof 
that in the post-exilian age the tenth was no 
longer levied in the first place by the Le- 
vites,—who had been wont only afterwards to 
render to the. priests the portion pertaining 
to the same,—but the priests themselves had 
entered upon the right of levying the tenth, 
which had been originally assigned to the 


may have stood in this respect, there was 
hardly any need of a justification of the 
words Heb. vii. 5, since no statement what- 
ever as to the mode of receiving the tenths is 
contained in the same; on the contrary, these 
words are equally appropriate for indirect as 
for direct levying of the tithes. 

2Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, Starck, B6hme, 
Hofmann. 

3 Owen, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Ewald. 

4Epiph. Haer. 67. 7; Cornelius a Lapide 
Braun, Ernesti, Schulz. 

5 Grotius. 


CHAP. VII. 6-9. 563 
the dispenser of the blessing is ever more exalted than the recipient of 
the blessing ! ! 

Ver. 7 joined on by means of 0é, since the verse contains the major of 
a syllogism. The minor is already furnished in the second half of ver. 6, 
and the conclusion: “ therefore Melchisedec is more exalted than Abra- 
ham,” is left to the readers themselves to supply.—The neuters +d é2ar- 
tov and 76 xpeirrov serve for the generalization of the statement, inas- 
much as the author has only persons in view. Comp. Winer, p. 167 [E. 
T. 178].—The truth of the statement, however, is apparent, in that the 
author is thinking of the blessing imparted in the name of God and by 
virtue of the divine authority. For Melchisedec as the priest of God was 
the representative of God, or one divinely commissioned, in the commu- 
nicating of the blessings. 

Ver. 8. Second point of superiority. The Levitical priests are mortal 
men ; but of Melchisedec it is testified that he lives—By «ai dde pév, 
“and here,” reference is made to the Levitical priests, by éxei dé, “but 
there,” to Melchisedec, because the Levitical priesthood still continues to 
exist to the time of our author, thus having something about it near and 
present; the historic appearing of Melchisedec, on the other hand, falls 
in the period of hoary antiquity.—dexarac] The plural, on account of the 
plurality of tithes levied by the Levitical priests —dazo@vjcKovrec] as the 
principal notion placed before av6pwr01.—azobvicKovtes avOpwro:] men who 
die (irrevocably or successively), comp. ver. 23.—éxei d@ waprupobmevog bre 
(| but there, one who has testimony that he lives, sc. dexétnv t2aBev. That by 
reason of the coherence with that which precedes only Melchisedec can be 
understood, and not? Christ, scarcely stands in need of mention. ¢%, as 
opposition to azofvycKovrec, can be interpreted only absolutely, of the life 
which is not interrupted by death. - That the author, in connection with 
aptvpobvmevoc, had before his mind a testimony contained in the Holy 
Scriptures of the Old Covenant, admits of no doubt. Whether, however, 


’- he derived the testimony of Melchisedec’s continued life from the silence 


of Scripture as to Melchisedec’s death, or found in the declaration, Ps. ex. 
4, a direct proof therefor, or, finally, combined the two facts together, and 
deduced his conclusion from both in common, is a question hardly to be 
decided.* 

Vv. 9, 10. Third point of superiority. In Abraham, Levi the receiver of 
the tithes has also already been tithed by Melchisedec.—The formula oc 
émog eimeiv, of very common occurrence with classic writers, as likewise 
frequently met with in Philo, is found in the N. T. only here. It denotes 
either : to say it in one word (in short), or: so to say, i.e. in some sense. In 


1Oecumenius: e&npe Tov ’ABpadm, iva mActov doret, Zeger, Whitby, Heinrichs, Bleek, 


efapn Tov MeAxiceder. | 

2 With Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, 
and Pyle. 

8The first supposition is entertained by 
Calvin, Estius, Drusius, Piscator, Grotius, 
Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Steiu, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
Maier, Moll, and others; the second, by Theo- 


Bloomfield, Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, M’Caul, 
Woerner, and others; the third, by Bohme, 
Riehm, Lekrbegr. des Hebrderbr. pp. 201, 454, 
and others. 

4Theophylact; To 6€ ws Eos eimety 7 rovTO 
ONMALVEL 0, TL Kai vy GUYTOMw EciTELY, H aYTi TON 
ty’ oUTWS Ei. 


564 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the former sense our passage is apprehended by Camerarius, Jac. Cappellus, 
Er. Schmid, Owen (preferably), Elsner, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann ; in the 
latter,—and this is here the more correct one,—the Vulgate, Faber Stapu- 
lensis, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kypke, 
Heinsius, B6hme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, 
Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hof- 
mann, Woerner, and the majority. The author himself feels that the 
thought he is on the point of expressing has something singular and 
unusual about it. Thus he mitigates and limits the harshness thereof by 
oc éroc eixetv, Whereby he indicates that the ensuing statement is, not- 
withstanding its inner truth, not to be understood literally.—év ‘ABpaau]} 
by Abraham, i.e. by the fact that Abraham gave the tenth. ’ABpadyu isa 
genitive. Mistaken; Augustine (de Genes. ad lit. x.19): propter Abraham ; 
Photius (in Oecumenius): dca tov dexatwSévta ’ABpadu gyor Tpdrov Tia Kai 
6 év TH Gobi abTov ett Ov Aevi dedexdtwtar.—Acvic] As is shown by the parti- 
ciple present in the addition 6 dexatac AauBdavwor, we have riot to think of the 
mere individual personality of Levi, but of him in connection with his 
posterity, thus of Levi as ancestor and representative of the Jewish 
priests. 

Ver. 10. Proof for the assertion ver. 9. When Abraham gave the tenth 
to Melchisedec, he was as yet childless, and therefore at that time still 
bore his descendants as in germ in himself. When, accordingly, by the 
presentation of the tenth he acknowledged a superior rank of Melchisedec 
over himself, he rendered homage to the latter not only in his own person, 
but at the same time as the representative of his posterity, as yet incapa- 
ble of independent action, because as yet unborn.—ér év rH dodbi Tov 
matpoc eivac] to be as yet in the loins of the father, or to be yet unborn. The 
expression is explained by the analogous é&épyeobae éx tHe dodboc Tuvéc, Ver. 
5: by generation to proceed from one’s loins.—roi tatpéc] is not to be taken, 
with Bleek, as a “universally recognized designation” of Abraham (i. e. 
as father of the Jews and Christians). It stands in special relation to 
Levi; thus: his father, wherein, of course, seeing Abraham was the great- 
grandfather of Levi, zat#p is to be understood in the wider sense, or as 
progenitor. . 

. Vv. 11-17. The Levitical priesthood in general has, together with the 
Mosaic law, lost its validity. [On Vv. 11-19, see Note LXIII., pages 580, 
581.] 

Ver. 11. From the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to the priest- 
hood of Melchisedec, just proved, it followed that the former was imper- 
fect and incapable of leading to perfection. This fact is now presupposed 
by the author as a self-evident consequence, and he proceeds at once to 
demonstrate the truth thereof. [LXIII b-e.]—oiv] deduces the conclusion 
from vy. 5-10, not from vi. 20 (de Wette, Bisping), whereby an interrup- 
tion ensues in the continuity of the development begun by the author.— 
et] with the indicative preterite (iv. 8, viii. 4), supposition of an impossible 
case: if there were, if there existed ; in combination with dia: if it were 
effected.—rereiworc] perfection, i.e. attainment of the highest goal of man- 


euAr. vir 10) 11; 565 


kind in a moral and religious respect. There is included in it the obtain- 
ing of the expiation of sins and the glory to come. Comp. ix. 9, x. 1, 14, 
xi. 40.—6 dade yap im’ abrie vevopobérytac] for the people on the ground thereof 
hath received the law. These words can be taken only as a parenthesis 
(against Stein). vopodereiy Tivi signifies to give laws to one, to provide 
one with a law (here the Mosaic law). The mode of transposing this 
active construction into the passive 6 Aad vevoyobérytay, is quite the usual 
one; comp. Winer, p. 244 f. [E. T. 261].—é7’ aitic] relates not to reAeiworc,) 
but to rac Aeviringe lepwobvyc. ini, however, denotes: upon the ground or 
condition of the existence of the Levitical priesthood, 7. e. the Levitical 
priesthood is indissolubly conjoined with the Mosaic law which the people 
has received; it forms a foundation pillar upon which the latter rests, so 
that with the fall of the one the other also must fall (ver. 12). Errone- 
ously,—because the statement thus arising would be too insignificant, and 
because éxi in this sense is used only with verba dicendi,?—Schlichting and 
Grotius [as also Whitby]: de sacerdotio Levitico legem accepit [an inter- 
pretation already rejected by Junius and Piscator]; as likewise Bleek I.: 
the people had received legal instruction concerning the Levitical priest- 
hood.—But to what end the parenthesis? Its design is to indicate the 
ground on which one might expect to attain to the reAeiwouc,—if the 
Mosaic law were at all capable of leading thereto,—by the intervention of 
the Levitical priesthood, since the Mosaic law is erected upon this very 
Levitical priesthood as its basis.—ri¢ ére xpeia] sc. qv, OF av 7. The words 
following ypeia are not to be blended together into one thought,* in such 
wise that 2éyecba is governed immediately by xpeva, and again all the 
rest (kata tyv rdéw Medyioedéx ETepov aviotacbat iepéa Kai ov Kata THY Tae 
’Aapdov) by Aéyecbar, The position of the words would then be contorted, 
and one explicable on no justifying grounds. On the contrary, the infini- 
tive clause kata tiv Taéwv MeAyioedéx étepov avicracba iepéa depends at once 
upon the immediately preceding ti¢ ére ypeia; and to this first infinitive 
clause the second kai ob kara thy Tdéw ’Aapov A€éyeobar forms an epexegetic 
parallel clause: What need was there still then (or : would there then still have 
been) that another priest should arise “ after the order of Melchisedec,” and 
not be called (priest) after the order of Aaron 2—ér1] sc. after the Levitical 
priesthood had long been instituted, and in general the Mosaic law pro- 
mulgated.—érepov] in distinction from aA/ov, brings prominently forward 
the dissimilarity of his nature and constitution as compared with that of 
the Levitical priests—To «ai we have not to supplement the whole idea 
érepov tepéa, but only iepéa.—od, however, is placed, not 7 as the infinitive 
éyeoda might seem to require, because the negation extends to only a 
part of the clause. 0, namely, is closely associated with kara Tay TagW 
‘Aapov, and forms with the same merely a more precise definition to the 
ispéa which is to be supplied, so that the total expression kai (iepéa) ob 





10, upon the supposition of the reading Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 248. 
én’ airy, Vatablus, but undecided; Seb. 3 Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Baumgarten, 
Schmidt, Starck, Rambach. Chr. Fr. Schmid. 

2Comp. Gal. ili. 16; Heindorf, ad Plat. 


566 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Kata THv Taéw ’Aapov presents an Opposition to the foregoing total expres: 
sion Kara tiv tagiv MeAyioedix érepov iepéa—Aéyeodac] namely, Ps. ex. 4. 
That Aéyeodar is not to be taken in the sense of eligi (Kuinoel, Stein, al.) is 
already shown by the Aéyera, ver. 13. 

Ver. 12. In the parenthesis, ver. 11, the author has brought forward in 
general the close connectedness of the Levitical priesthood with the 
Mosaic law, and thereby already indicated that if the former is an imper- 
fect and unsatisfying one, the same also is true of the latter; the 
perishing of the one involves also the perishing of the other. This truth 
the author now further specially urges, by means of a corroboration of 
the parenthetical remark, ver. 11. So in recent times also Alford and 
Woerner. Otherwise is the connection apprehended by Bleek, de Wette, 
Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 484), Maier, and 
Moll. They refer yap to the main thought in ver. 11, and find in ver. 12 
an indication of the reason “ why a change of the sacerdotal order would 
not have ensued without an urgent cause, namely, because such change 
would have involved also a change of the law in general.” But subject- 
matter and form of expression in ver. 12 point back to the parenthesis, 
ver. 11. For in both the author is speaking of the inseparable conjunc- 
tion of the Levitical priesthood with the Mosaic law; and éz’ airic, ver. 
11, is resumed by rie tepwobvyc, ver. 12; vevouodétyra, ver. 11, by véuov, 
ver. 12.—peratidenévyc] denotes, like the wera deore immediately following, 
certainly as to its verbal signification, only a transformation or change (not 
specially, as Chrysostom, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, Heinrichs, Stuart, and 
others suppose, a transference of the priesthood to another tribe of the 
Jewish people, or to a non-Aaronides.) As regards the thing intended, 
however,—as ig manifest from the parallel adéryove, ver. 18,—an actual 
rendering obsolete or abrogation is spoken of. The author thus still expresses 
himself with delicacy of feeling —That, further, »éuo0¢ is to be limited, 
neither? to the law of the priesthood, nor* to the ceremonial law, but is to be 
interpreted of the Mosaic law in general, is self-evident. 

Vv. 13, 14. First proof of ver. 12. [LXIII f.] Levitical priesthood and 
- Mosaic law have lost their validity. For Christ, to whom the utterance 
of God, Ps. ex. 4, refers, belongs in point of fact to another tribe, which, 
according to Mosaic ordinance, has nothing to do with the administration 
of the priesthood. 

Ver. 13. ’Eq’ bv] With regard to whom. Comp. Mark ix. 12,13; Rom. 
iv. 9.—2éyerac tavta] contains, like the Aéyec¥ar of ver. 11, a direct allusion 
to the declaration of God, Ps. ex. 4. Wrongly Paulus: that which I have 
said heretofore.—oviaje érépac peréoynxev] has part in another tribe (i.e. in a 
tribe different from that of Levi), namely, as member thereof—aq’ 7] 
descended from which, or belonging to the number of its members.—ovdeic 
mpooéoynkev TO Ovovactnpiw] no one, namely, according to the ordinance of 
the law, attends at the altar, i.e. performs the priestly functions. 

1 With Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, Wit- — 2With Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. 


tich, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Zachariae, Whitby, Cappellus, Carpzoy, Kuinoel, Klee, and 
Sehulz. others. 


CHAP. VII. 12-15. 567 


Ver. 14. Further evidencing of ver. 13.—rpédydov yap, orc] for it ie 
clearly apparent that. The ztpo in pédndov is not to be taken, with 
Peirce (following Owen), temporally, according to which the sense would be, 
that Christ’s descent from the tribe of Judah was made known beforehand, 
i.e. before He had yet arisen upon earth,—with which, in the first place, 
the perfect avarétradxev does not harmonize,—but contains the notion 
of lying manifestly before the eyes. Theodoret: 1d mpédy20v we avavtippytov 
réeue. apo serves, therefore, only for the strengthening of the simple 
djaov. Comp. 1 Tim. vy. 24, 25.—éF "Ioida] out of Judah, i.e. from the 
tribe of Judah (comp. Rev. v. 5; Gen. xlix.9, 10). With emphasis pre- 
posed.—avaréradxev] has arisen or sprung forth. The figure which underlies 
the verb is either that of a rising star (comp. Num. xxiv. 17; Mal. iv. 2; Isa. 
lx. 1), or of a tender shoot coming up from the ground (Gen. xix. 25; Isa. 
xliv. 4; Ezek. xvii. 6; comp. also avarod#, NS, with reference to the 
Messiah, Jer. xxiii. 5; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12).—<é kéipioc judv] Jesus Christ.— 
ei¢ fv gvagv] in reference to which tribe.—repi iepéwv] sc. who should be 
taken out of the same. 

Vv. 15-17. Second proof of ver. 12. The abrogation of the Levitical 
priesthood and the Mosaic law follows further from the fact that the new 
priest who is promised is to bear resemblance to Melchisedec, whereby it 
is made manifest that his characteristic peculiarity is one quite different 
from that of the Levitical priests. 

Ver. 15. Kai repicoérepov ére xatddnddv éotw] and the more still is it evident, 
namely, that with the Levitical priesthood the whole Mosaic law, too, is 
changed (and deprived of validity), ver. 12. Comp. also ver. 18. Not: 
what difference there is between the Levitical and the N. T. priesthood ;? 
nor yet that perfection is to be found, not in the Levitical priesthood, 
but in the priesthood of Christ;? and just as little: that the priesthood 
is changed? Quite mistakenly Ebrard: to karddyAév éorw we have to 
supply from ver. 14 the clause ér é ’Iotda avaréradxev 6 Kbpioc judv: “ that 
Jesus descended from Judah is first in itself an acknowledged fact (ver. 14); 
this, however, is so much the more clear, since (ver. 15) it follows from 
the Melchisidecian nature of His priesthood that He could not be born 
xata véuov!” How then could it be inferred from the fact that Jesus could 
not be born xara véuov, that He must have descended precisely “ from 
Judah ” ?!—xarddyAov] a similar intensifying of the simple form, as previ- 
ously zpédniov.—ei . . . aviorarac] if, as surely is the case, their arises.* ei 
thus, as to the sense, equal to ére1d4.5—xard tiv duoidtrnta MeAyioedéx] as 
the main idea placed first, and éuocérye an elucidation of the ré&e in 
the passage of the Psalms.—The subject in the conditional clause is iepetc 


1Chrysostom: 70 pécov tis iepwovvns éxaré- 4That. Stein would combine et and o¢ in 
pas, TO Suadopor, Clarius, Zeger, Bisping. the sense: “It is quite clear to all that, if at 

2 Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Hofmann, Schrift- any time another priest after the manner of 
bew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 551; Delitzsch. Melchisedee arises, he then,” ete., deserves 

3Primasius, Justinian, Owen, Hammond, to be mentioned only as a curiosity. 
Rambach, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stuart, Klee, 5 Oecumenius, Theophylact. 


Paulus. 


568 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


érepoc (if . . . another priest arises), not merely érepoc (Schulz: “if... 
another is appointed as priest”), nor yet Jesus (if He ... arises as 
another priest). 

Ver. 16. [LXIII g, h.] Nearer indication as to what is implied by the 
chararacteristic kata ti» duodtyta Medyioedéx, ver. 15, what peculiarity of 
priesthood is expressed by the same.—éc] sc. lepedg érepoc, NOt: MeAyioedéx. 
—ic ... yéyoverv] who... has become so (sc. priest).—ovb xara véuov évtodje 
capkivyc «.7.A.] not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according 
to the power of indestructible [or indissoluble] life. In connection with 
véuoc, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bbhme, Kuinoel, Tholuck, 
Delitzsch, and others think of the Mosaic law ; but against this argues the 
singular évroAge capkKivye, to take which, with the expositors mentioned, 
in the sense of the plural (according to the Mosaic law, whose essence 
consists in fleshly ordinances), or as a collective designation of the con- 
stituent parts of the lawas 6 véuoc tév évroAdv, Eph. ii. 15, is arbitrary. 
vépmoc is therefore to be taken, as Rom. vii. 21, 23, in the more general 
sense: norm (rule, standard), and the évroA7 is the special precept or 
ordinance which the Mosaic law contains regarding the Levitical priest- 
hood.—It is called jleshly, however, according to Carpzov, BOhme, Stuart, 
and others, because it is mutable and transitory; more correctly, never- 
theless : because it lays stress only upon external, earthly things, which fall 
a prey to transitoriness, and (comp. the contrast a/2a xara divauww x.t.A.) 
appoints as priests only mortal men, of whom one after another is snatched 
away by death.—xara divauw Cwme axatadirov] t.e. inasmuch as the power 
of living for ever is inherent in Him. Comp. vv. 17, 24. Improperly do 
Cameron, Dorscheus, Calov, al., refer it as well, or solely, to Christ’s power 
of communicating intransitory life fo others. But wrongly, too, Hofmann 
(Schriftbew. IL. }j 2 Aufl. p. 551 f.), Delitzsch, and Alford: the Cw axatadvroc 
is to be limited to that life of Christ which began with His resurrection. 
On the contrary, the Cw) dxardavroc is thought of as a property inherent 
in the ieped¢e érepoc, without respect to relation of time.? 

Ver. 17, Scripture proof for kata divayw Cope axatadbrov, ver. 16. This 
Scripture proof the author finds in the ei¢ tov aiéva, Ps. ex. 4, upon which 
words, therefore, the emphasis rests in ver. 17.—yaprupeirac yap] for he 
(namely, the isped¢ érepoc, ver. 15, i.e. Christ) has the testimony. 
is not to be taken impersonally: “it is witnessed ” (Bleek, Bisping, Cony- 
beare, al.).—r:] recitative, as x. 8, xi. 18. 

Vy. 18,19. [LXIII 7, 7.] Elucidation of that which is signified by this 
proclamation in the psalm, of the arising of a new everlasting priest after 
the manner of Melchisedec (ver. 17). By virtue of that proclamation of 
God, the Mosaic institution of the priests, and with it the Mosaic law in 


fapTupEeirat 


Inde 


1Schlichting: carnale (praeceptum) voca- 
tur, quia totum ad carnem spectabat, car- 
nisque rationem habebat. Partim enim ad 
certam stirpem, nempe Aaronicam, sacerdo- 
tii dignitatem adstrinxerat, partim mortali- 
tuti pontificum, quae carnis propria est, con- 


sulens, successionis jura descripserat. 
enim factum est, ut unum alteri suecedere 
juberet, quo, morientibus sacerdotibus, sa- 
cerdotium tamen ipsum perpetuaretur, 

2Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. 
p. 458, Obs. 


CHAP. vil. 16-19. 569 


general, is declared—and that with good reason—to be devoid of force; 
and, on the other hand, a better hope is brought in.'—Vvy. 18, 19 contain 
a single proposition, dividing itself into two halves by means of wév.. . 
dé, for which yiverac forms the common verb, and in which ovdév yap 
étedciwoerv 6 vduoc constitutes a parenthesis.” Others construe differently, 
in taking each of the two verses as an independent statement in itself. 
They then vary as regards the interpretation of érecaywy4, ver. 19, as this 
is looked upon either as predicate or as subject. As predicate it is taken 
by Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus (Version), Vatablus, Calvin, Hunnius, Jac. 
Cappellus, Pyle, Ebrard, and others, in supplying éoriv or qv, and regard- 
ing as subject thereto 6 véuoc. According to this, the sense would be: for 
nothing has the law brought to perfection; but it is (or its meaning con- 
sists in this, that it is) a bringing in of a better hope. But against this 
argues the fact that, if érevcaywyy dé was intended to form the opposition 
to the first half of ver. 19, the author could not possibly—after having 
placed a verb (éredeiwoev) in the first half, consisting as it does only of a 
few words—have continued in the second half otherwise than with a verb; 
he must have written ée:odyee dé xpeittova éArida instead of éreioaywyy dé 
x.t.2. Moreover, éré in érewaywyf would have remained without any 
reference upon the supposition of this construction. As subject érewaywyn 
is looked upon by Beza, Castellio, Pareus, Piscator, Schlichting, Owen, Seb. 
Schmidt, Carpzov, Whitby, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, Valckenaer, Hein- 
richs, Stuart, and others. The sense would then be; the law indeed 
brought nothing to perfection ; but the bringing in of a better hope did lead 
to perfection. Against this view, however, the consideration is decisive, 
that in such case, inasmuch as the preceding véuo¢ has the article, érecoa- 
ywyf also must have obtained the article—The statement of ver. 18 is to 
be understood in special relation to the subject in question (not, as is 
done by Schlichting, Heinrichs, and others, as a truth of universal im- 
port). The article before tpoayotone évtoage is wanting, because the design 
was to express the évroAf regarding. the Levitical priesthood as one which 
had only the character of an évroar mT podyovoa.—avérnac| a declaring void 
of force, abrogation. Comp. a¥vereiv Gal. ili. 15. The substantive only here 
and ix. 26.—yivera‘] results, namely, in the declaration of God, Ps. cx. 4— 
The évroa#, the command, denotes not the whole Mosaic law,’ but the 
ordinance regarding the Levitical priesthood therein contained. Only 
with ver. 19 does the author transfer to the whole that which he here 
states concerning a part—The évr0/#, however, is termed tpoayovca 
(comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, v. 24), because, as a constituent part of theO. T., it 
preceded in point of time the institution of the New Covenant. Yet, at 





1Theodoret: Tavetat, Pyatv, 0 vomos, émeroa- Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 592), Al- 
yetau S€ H TOV KpELTTOVWY EATS, ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, 
2So, rightly, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- Woerner, and the majority. 
phylact, Primasius, Luther, Zeger, Camera- 3Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 


rius, Estius, Peiree, Bengel, M’Lean, Schulz, Theophylact, Primasius, Calvin, Grotius, 
Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel. Tholuck, Hammond, Owen, M’Lean, B6hme, Kuinoel, 
Bloomfield, Conybeare, Bisping, Delitzsch, Stuart, Klee, Bloomfield. 


570 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the same time, there lies in the emphatically preposed participle, on 
account of its reciprocal relation to érewaywyy, ver. 19. at least the addi- 
tional indication delicately conveyed, that this évroA#, since just as a mere 
precursor of something future it points beyond itself, naturally bears the 
character of the merely temporary and consequently unsatisfactory —0é.a 7d 
airig acvevic kai avugeréc] on account of its weakness and unprofitableness. 
The évroA4 was weak, since it did not possess the strength to attain its ob- 
ject, namely, the-reconciliation of men to God; but, because in such man- 
ner it did not fulfill the end of its existence, it became for that very reason 
something unprofitable and unserviceable. On acdevéc, comp. Rom. viii. 
3; Gal. iv. 9.—oidév] is not to be limited by means of oidéva (Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Bis- 
ping), but, on the contrary, is to be left in the full universality of the neu- 
ter. Completion in general, in whatever respect, the law was not in a 
position to bring about.—ére:saywy4] adoubly composite term. Literally : 
introduction upon or in addition to, i. e. the bringing in of something new in 
addition to, or over and above, an object already present (here: in addi- 
tion to the xpodyovoa évroaf, ver. 18). éri in érevoaywyf corresponds 
therefore to the zpé in xpoayotanc.—xpeittovoc éAridoc] of a better hope, se. 
than the zpoayovsa évt02#4 was in a position to afford.! Better, more excel- 
_ lent, is the hope founded upon the newly instituted priesthood, in that this 
hope is certain and infallible, thus in reality leads to the desired: goal.— 
Ov ne éyyiouev tO Ge] by means of which we draw nigh unto God (Jas. iv. 8). 
Comp. vi. 19: eicepyouévny ei¢ rd éodtepoy Tov KaTaTteTaopuatoc, and x. 19 ff. 
In contrast with the character of the Old Covenant, since the people were 
not permitted to enter the Most Holy Place, where the throne of Jehovah 
was. Cf. 1x.,6 71. 

Vv. 20-22. [On Vv. 20-28, see Note LXIV., pages 582, 583.] As one 
element in the superiority of the everlasting priesthood after the manner 
of Melchisedec, assigned to Christ, over the Levitical priesthood has been 
already -implicitly brought forward, vv. 18, 19, namely, that the goal, for 
the attainment of which the strength was lacking to the Levitical priest- 
hood, is really attained by the everlasting priesthood. A second point of 
superiority in the new order of things over the old follows in vv. 20-22. 
Of less moment than the everlasting priesthood of Jesus must the Levitical 
priesthood be; for the former was constituted by God by virtue of a 
declaration upon oath, the latter without a declaration upon oath, Vv. 
20-22 form again a single period, the protasis being contained in ka? xa6, 


1 We have not to explain, with Schulz: “So 
is then ... something better introduced, the 
hope, by virtue of which,” ete. To the same 
result as Schulz does Delitzsch also come, 
when he observes: “It is not meant that the 
law also afforded a hope, and that the one 
introduced by the word of the psalm is only 
by comparison better; but the xpeittwy éAmis, 
which possesses that which is truly perfected 
in the future, in the world beyond the grave, 


into which its anchor has been sunk (vi. 19), 
stands opposed to the évtoAy in the present 
state of its unsatisfying praxis.” In the same 
manner, lastly, Alford: “The contrast is be- 
tween the mpoayovoa évroAy, weak and un- 
profitable, and a better thing, viz. the €Amis, 
which brings us neartoGod. This cpe(rroveg 
TWos, TouTeaTLv eAmidos K.T.A., is expressed by 
KpettTovos €Amidos.” 


CHAP. vil. 20-22. ay Al 


doov vv ywpic¢ dpKwpooiac, tO which then kai rocovro x.7.2. ver. 22, corresponds 
as the apodosis, while all that intervenes (oi yév yap, to the end of ver. 21) 
is a parenthesis. [LXIV a.] Wrongly do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, 
Calvin (in the translation), Er. Schmid, and others join Kai xa boov ob Ywpic 
épkwpociac, too, to the closing words of ver. 19: and, indeed, a hope which is 
better, inasmuch as it is not brought in without an oath. So also Luther: 
“and moreover, which is a great thing, not without oath ; ” while, with 
not less violence, Lud. Cappellus, who, in enclosing vy. 18, 19 within a 
parenthesis, and taking Kai Kaf boon ob ywpic épkwpooiac With ver. 17, gives as 
the sense: “ Deus constituit Christum sacerdotem secundum ordinem Mel- 
chisedec, et quidem non sine jurejurando.”—xa‘] coupling on a farther 
link in the chain of enumeration, as VV. 8, 9, 28.—xai Ka? boov ov yopic 
dpkwpociac] sc. iepedy éoTw yeyovoc ; and inasmuch (ix. 27) as He has become 
priest not without a declaration upon oath, i.e. He has not become so without 
God having sanctioned His appointment to be a priest by a declaration 
upon oath (namely, by virtue of the oath, with which the declaration, Ps. 
ex. 4, is introduced). Only this mode of supplementing is warranted by 
the connection, as is shown partly by the of ev yap xupic dpxwpociac elotv 
iepeic¢ yeyovoTes immediately following, partly by the circumstance that 
the author is still engaged in the exposition of the Seripture statement, 
yer. 17, this statement thus containing for him the gist of the matter; as, 
accordingly, this declaration of Scripture is repeated anew, ver. 21, and 
then likewise the evoiv iepecc yeyovérec recurs in the further member 
of the thought, ver. 23 f. The explanation therefore of Seb. Schmidt, 
Wolf, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Alford, Kurtz, and others is to 
be rejected; when to xaf ocov ob yopi¢ épkwpociac they supplement from the 
apodosis duafjxne Eyyvoc yéyovev; as also that of Storr, Schulz, Bleek, de 
Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Moll, and Hofmann, when they sup- 
ply roiro (se. érecoaywyn KpeltTovoc éAmidoc) ylveTar (yéyovev).—ol peév yap | 
[LXIV 6, c.] namely, the Levitical priests.—xopic épkapociac] since nothing 
is related in Scripture of an oath of God, when He destined Aaron and 
his posterity to be priests.—eioiv yeyovérec] forms one idea: have become. 
Wrongly, Paulus and Klee: are priests who have become so without an 
oath. Bohme (and so also Hofmann): “sunt sacerdotes, sed sine jura- 
mento (illi quidem singuli deinceps) facti »__which must have been ex- 
pressed by eiciv iepeic yuopic dpKupooiag yeyovéTes. Still more widely mistaken 
the view of Michaelis ad Peirce. : “ fuerunt, j.e. esse desierunt,”—which is 
grammatically as well as logically impossible. The tempus periphrasticum 
eioiv yeyorérec marks the fact already belonging to the past as still extend- 
ing onwards into the present.—é 6é] namely, Christ.—pe épxwpociac] sc. 
iepebe éotw yeyovac.—dia Tov Aéyovroe mpoc avTov] 2. e. in the sense of the author: 
by God, not: by the psalmist (Rambach, Heinrichs), although certainly the 
statement, Ps. cx. 4, that God hath sworn and will not repent of this oath, 
forms nota constituent part of the words of God Himself, but a remark of 
the psalmist, with which he introduces the words of God. Yet, when in the 
psalm it is said that God has sworn, and of this oath He will not repent, 
and then there is adduced as the subject-matter of this oath the declara- 


ye THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


tion : ov iepede «.7./., this is tantamount to saying that God has declared 
by virtue of an irreversible oath: ot ispede «7.4. As, accordingly, the 
psalmist is relating the words of God, so does he also relate the oath 
which preceded them. 

Ver. 22. The apodosis: Jesus has become the surety of a so much more ex- 
cellent covenant, i.e. so much more excellent is the covenant of which Jesus 
has become surety.—éyyvoc] in the N. T. only here. Comp. however, 2 
Mace. x. 28; Ecclus. xxix. 15, 16.—Surety of a better covenant has Jesus 
become, 7. e. in the person of Jesus pledge and guarantee is given that a 
better covenant has been established by God. For Christ, the Son of 
God, had become man in order to proclaim this covenant upon earth, had 
sealed it by His sufferings and death, and had been mightily accredited 
by His resurrection from the dead as a Founder of the Covenant who 
had been sent by God.—incorrectly do Piscator, Owen, Calov, Wittich, 
Braun, and others find the thought expressed that Christ became surety 
to God for men, in that He vicariously took upon Himself the guilt which 
they must have borne; while, just as erroneously, Limborch, Baumgarten, 
Chr. Fr. Schmid, and others contend that a reciprocal suretyship, for God 
with men and for men with God, ismeant. Each of these views has the con- 
text against it; since there respect is had only to that which has been guar- 
anteed to men by the new order of things. Comp. ver. 19: kpeitrovoc éAridoc, 
Ov ae éyyiopev TH VEO; VV. 25, 26.—Tyoovc] with emphasis placed at the end. 

Vy. 23-25. [LXIV d, e.] Third point of superiority of the priesthood of 
Christ over the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priests die one after the 
other; Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand, is, since He ever lives, an 
unchangeable and intransitory one. The author consequently lays special 
stress upon that point of superiority to which already, ver. 16 f. (comp. 
ver. 8), he had pointed. 

Ver. 23. Kai] parallel to the «ai, ver. 20.—kai of pév rAciovéc iow tepei¢ 
ysyovérec| and they on the one hand have as several (or as a plurality) become 
priests, i.e. of Levitical priests there is a multiplicity. Attention is not 
here called to the peculiarity that many priests. always existed contem- 
poraneously the one with the other (so Erasmus, Paraphr., Braun, De- 
litzsch), or that “the Levitical priesthood was not given to one, but to a 
lineage”? (Hofmann). That which is meant is—as is evident from the 
immediately following 61a 7d Aavatw KwAbecbar rapauévery, and from ver. 24— 
the successive plurality, in that one dies after another, and consequently 
the one succeeds the other. For the author in thus speaking has before 
his mind the high priests, since it is just with these that Christ is placed in 
parallel. Comp. ver. 26 ff., al—d.ia 1d Oavatrw KwAbecbar rupapévery| because 
(wrongly de Wette: “by the fact that’) they are (wrongly de Wette and 
Bisping : “ were’’) prevented by death from continuing —rapapéve] not: év 
th iepwovvy.’ It denotes, as is clear from the corresponding é:a 1d pévew 
avrov ei¢ Tov alava, ver. 24, to continue in life? 

130 Oecumenius, who is followed by Gro- Hebrderbr. pp. 459, 437; Alford, Maier, Kurtz 


tius, Seb. Schmidt, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. 
Bloomfield, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des 2Comp. also Phil, i. 25, and Meyer ad loc, 


CHAP. VII. 22-25. 573 

Ver. 24. The other, on the other hand, because (not “by the fact that,” 
de Wette, Bisping) He abides unto eternity, has His priesthood as an un- 
changeable one.—pévew ei¢ tov aidva] must not be explained, with Estius, 
Seb. Schmidt, and others, of abiding for ever as priest. For in this way 
the declaration of ver. 24 becomes tautological. The expression denotes 
the everlasting duration of life (comp. John xii. 34, xxi. 22, 23; 1 Cor. xv. 
6; Phil. i. 25), is thus equivalent to the mdavrore (pv, ver. 25.—arapaBaroc] a 
word belonging to later Greek (comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 313), save here, 
foreign to the N. T., as also to the LXX. Erasmus, Schlichting, Bengel, 
Schulz, B6hme, Stengel, Stuart, Ebrard, Hofmann, Conybeare, and the 
majority, take it in the active signification: not passing over to another, 
thus remaining with the same person, or unchanging. More correctly, how- 
ever, because more consistently with the demonstrable usage of the 
language (see instances in Wetstein and Bleek), does Bleek, after the pre- 
cedent of Elsner, insist upon the passive signification : “that which may 
not be overstepped, transgressed ; therefore: inviolable, unalterable, im- 
mutable,” which then, it is true, includes likewise the notion of ‘ un- 
changing.” 

Ver. 25. "Oev] Wherefore, sc. because His priesthood is an everlasting 
one.—xai] also, represents the statement, ver. 25, as being the natural 
effect of the azapaBartov éyew tv iepwodvyv, ver. 24, as its cause.—ei¢ 76 
mavtedéc] means: perfectly, completely, entirely (comp. Luke xiii. 11), and 
combines with céfew in one idea. 
Kal TeAgiav owTnpiay Tapéyev. 


Theodoret : airov yap cdleww jude eipyrev 
The meaning: in perpetuum, attached to the 
word by the Peshito, the Vulgate, Chrysostom (0b xpdc 7d rapdv pévor, 
onoiv, aAAad Kai Exel Ev TH weAAobon SoH), Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, 
Calvin, Schlichting, Grotius, Heinrichs, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, and others, 
in joining it either with céfew or with divata, is in accordance neither 
with the etymology nor the usage (instances in Bleek), but arises only 
from the connection, and is consequently to be rejected.—cdfew] save, 
embraces the deliverance from the misery of sin and its consequences, 
and, on the other hand, the communication of everlasting blessedness. 
Too restricted, Hofmann: the answering of prayer, and deliverance out 
of every assault.—rod¢ mpocepyouévove dv aitod TH Be@] those who through 
Him, i.e. through faith in Him, draw near to God.—rdvrore Cav eic ro évrvy- 
xavew ixép aitav] seeing that He evermore lives, to make intercession for them 
(Rom. vill. 26, 27, 34), or to represent them (sc.in the presence of God). 
More precise unfolding of the notion already lying in 6%«v.—Similarly 
for the rest does Philo, too, ascribe to his Logos an intercession with God.? 

Vv. 26-28. [LXIV f-i.] Fourth point of superiority of the priesthood of 


1So0, as it would seem, already Theodoret 
(obros Sé aBavatos wy els ETEpov OV TapaTéurTeL 
THS Lepwovvns TO yépas), Oecumenius (adcado- 


TOV KOTLOV TATPL, TapakANTw xpnoTOat TeAELOTATW 
THY APETHY Via, TPOS TE AuVyOTiaY amapTHuaTwr 
Kat xopnylav abOovwrdtwv ayabav.—Quis. rer. 


xov, ateAevtTnTov), Theophylact (aécaxcorov, 
ad.adoxor). 

2Comp. Vit. Mos. iii. p. 673 C (with Mangey, 
II. p. 155): "Avaykatov yap hv Tov iepwuevov To 


div. haer. 42, p.509 B (with Mangey, I. p. 501): 
‘O & avtos ixetns ev eote TOD SvyTOV, Knpaivor- 
TOS aél, Tpos TO abdapTor. 


574 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Christ over the Levitical priesthood, in the form of an establishing of ver. 25. 
The Levitical priests are sinful men, who need daily to offer for their own 
sins and the sins of the people; Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once 
for all has offered up Himself as a sacrifice. 

Ver. 26. Proof for the actual existence of a high priest who is able in a 
perfect manner to procure salvation, since He ever liveth to represent in 
the presence of God those who believe in Him (ver. 25), derived from the 
meetness and adaptedness to our need of just such a high priest: for such a 
high priest (as had just been described, ver. 25) also beseemed us. tovovtoc 
begins no parenthesis, so that éovo¢ «.7.A. were only “the continuation of 
a series begun with mévrore (év eic¢ ro évtvyxaveww bxép aitov” (Hofmann), 
nor is “oloc 6 ’Iycove to be supplemented from ver. 22” (Woerner), nor 
does it serve for the introducing or preparing the way for the following 
predicates, éovo¢ «7.2. (Grotius, Tholuck, al.), but refers back to the char- 
acterization, ver. 25; while, then, with 6éov¢ «7.4. a newly beginning 
further description of this so constituted high priest, or a further unfolding 
of the rowiroc, follows, in such wise that the éovo¢ «.7.4. thus attached is 
best rendered by: He, since He is holy, etc., beseemed us.—xai] also, 7. e. 
exactly. See Winer, p. 408 [E. T. 488].—éovoc] holy or pure. In regard to 
the relation towards God.'—daxaxoc] free from xaxia, from craft and malice. 
In regard to the relation towards men2—ayiavroc] unstained by any kind of 
impurity. In regard to the relation towards Himself.t—xeyopiouévoc ard 
Tov auapTwAav] separated from the sinners, t.e. not: different from them by 
reason of His sinlessness,* but—as is evident from the member immedi- 
ately following—withdrawn by His exaltation to heaven from all contact with 
the sinners, so that He cannot be defiled by them. As the Levitical priests 
in general, so must very specially the high priest preserve himself free 
from defilement (Lev. xxi. 10 ff.); before the great,day of atonement he 
must, according to the Talmud, spend seven days in the temple, apart 
from his family, in order to be secured against defilement.’\—xai iynAdrevoe 
TOY ovpavav yevduevoc] and (not “also” or “ even,” as Hofmann contends) 
raised above the heavens, inasmuch, namely, as He deAgavbe rov¢ ovpavoic, 
iv. 14. Comp. Eph. iv. 10: 6 dvaBac¢ irepdve ravtwv Tov obpavar. 

Ver. 27. In the rpérepov irép tov Wiwy auaptidv, éxerta TOV Tov Aaov there 
is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day 
of atonement (Ley. xvi.), comp. ix. 7. We are prevented, however, from 
referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sin-offer- © 
ing prescribed, Lev. iv. 3 ff.) by «a@’ #uépav, instead of which, as at ix. 
25, x. 1, 3, Kaz’ éviavtév must have been placed. For xaW® juépav can 
signify nothing else than “ daily ” or “day by day.” To foist upon it the 


1 Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 24; 1 Tim. 8 Comp. Jas. i. 27; 1 Pet. i. 4. 
li. 8; Tit. i.8 With the LXX. for the most 4So the Peshito, separatus a peccatis ; Vata- 
part translation of WOM, e.g. Ps. iv. 4 (3), xvi. blus, Calvin, Cameron, Carpzoy, Owen, Bohme, 
10 (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35), xxx. 5 (4). .- Kuinoel, Stuart, Klee, Ebrard, Bloomfield, 
2 Chrysostom: "Akakos ti éotiv ; ‘“Amdvypos, Kurtz, and others. 
ovx UzrovAos" Kal OTL TOLOUTOS, GkoVE TOU TpOd?- 5See Tract. Joma, i.1. Comp. also Schott 


Tov A€yovtos’ Ovde evpedy Soros ev TO oTOmaT.. gen, Horae Hebraicae, p. 963 f. 
evre® “{sa. lili. 9). 


CHAP. vil. 26, 27. 575 


signification : “ yearly ona definite day” (“kad juéoav dpiopévyy or tetay- 
pévyv’’), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam, 
in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr. 
Schmid, M’Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense, 
as equivalent to “saepissime, quoties res fert” (Grotius, Owen), or “ zoA- 
Aang” (BOhme, Stein), or “dia zavtéc”’ (de Wette), or in the sense of “ one 
day after another” (Ebrard, who supposes the author is overlooking a 
succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to 
his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice !), is 
linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it is a mere subterfuge and 
arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrierbr. p. 488), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hof- 
mann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 404 f., 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense: 
that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once 
every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all- 
embracing expiation of sin—must needs do day by day. For all that is 
expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the 
Levitical high priests need to do daily.!. Nor does it avail anything that 
Kurtz will take ca¥ juépay in conjunction only with otk éyec avdyxny, 
since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only 
acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that ca¥ 
juépav has “nothing whatever to do with the @vaiac avadépey,” is a mere 
assertion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the “daily 
renewal and daily pressing necessity,” of the O. T. high priest on account 
of his daily sinning, the necessity, “ere (on the great day of propitiation) 
he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacri- 
fice for his own sins,” was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion 
of the words,—admitting as they do of no misapprehension,—from which 
even the rpérepov, éxeira, expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have 
kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary charac- 
ter of the one half of the statement, xpd row with the infinitive, or zpiv 
(xpiv 7), must have been written. We have therefore to conclude, with 
Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck, 
that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on 
the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice 
of the Levitical priests (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 3-8), and by reason 
of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together; to which he 
might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high 
priest—not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, new moons, and other 
festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii.3: in general as often as 
be was so minded)—went up with the other priests into the temple, and 
took part in the sacrificial service.? To be compared also are the words 


1 The unsatisfactory character of the above 1860, H. 4, p. 595). 
exposition was afterwards acknowledged by 2Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, v. 5.7: 
Delitzsch himself, and the explanation re- ‘O dé apxtepeds avyjer wev adv avTOLS GAN’ OK ae, 
tracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s tats 8 é€Bdouaor Kai voupynviats, Kat El TLs EOPTT 
Zeitscnr.f. die gesammte luther. Theol. u. Kirche, TaTpLos H Tavyyupis Tavdnwos ayouern di’ eTOus 


576 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


of Philo, who, Quis rer. divin. haer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), re- 
marks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for them- 
selves, but the lambs for the people,! and de Speciall. Legg. p. 797 E (with 
Mangey, II. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the 
offering of a daily sacrifice.” Recently also Delitzsch * has further drawn 
attention to the fact that likewise, Jer. Chagiga, 1.4, and Bab. Pesachim, 
57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily—rovro] namely, 76 ixép 
tov vov Aaod duapti@v Ovoiav avagéperv. So rightly—as is even demanded by 
ver. 28 (comp. iv. 15)—Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, 
Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby, 
Storr, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloom- 
field, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 463), Alford, 
Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, 
Bengel, and Ebrard supplement 70 @voia¢ dvagépeww; while, altogether 
wrongly, Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schrijtbew. II. 
1, 2 Aufl..pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back rovro to the whole proposition xpérepov 
... Aad. For in the application to Christ, to explain the duapria as the 
“dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quas Christus occasione 
etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per 
mortem ” (Grotius), or as “ Christi infirmitates et perpessiones ” (Schlicht- 
ing, Hofmann, according to which latter in connection with éavrdv ave- 
véyxac, besides Christ’s suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (!) is 
at the same time to be thought of ), becomes possible only on the arbitrary 
supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much 
opposed to the context (ver. 28) as to the linguistic use of duapriaz.—egarat ] 
once for all; comp. ix. 12, x. 10; Rom. vi. 10. Belongs to éroijcev, not to 
avevéykac.—éavrov avevéyxac] in that He offered Himself. Christ is thus not 
only the High Priest of the New Covenant, but also the victim offered. 
Comp. viii. 8, ix. 12, 14, 25 f., x. 10, 12, 14; Eph. v. 2. 

Ver. 28. Establishment: of rovro éxoincev égarak, ver. 27, by the definite 
formulating of the statement of the fourth point of superiority of the New 
Testament High Priest over the high priests of the Old Covenant,—a statement 
for which the way has been prepared by vv. 26, 27. The law constitutes 

‘high priests men who are subject to weakness, and thus also to sin (comp. 
y. 2, 3), on which account they have to offer, as for the people, so also for 
themselves, and have ofttimes to repeat this sacrifice; the word of the 
oath, on the other hand (comp. ver. 21), which ensued after the law,— 
namely, only in the time of David,—and consequently annulled the law, 
ordains as high priest the Son (see on i. 1), who is for ever perfected, 7. e. 
without sin (iv. 15), and by His exaltation withdrawn from all human 
aodéveca, however greatly He had part therein during His life on earth; 


1’AAAG Kat Tas EvdeAexets Suolas Opas eis toa Ta Sixata Tos audiaBynTovGL KaTa TOUS VOUS, 
Senpnnevas, hv Te Urép a’Tav avdyouaw oi lepeis EV XAS SE Kai dugias TEAOY Kad’ EKag- 
dca THs oepidadews Kal THY UTEp TOU EtVoOUS TOV THV NMEpav. 
Svolv apvayv, ovs avadepery dcetpyrat. 3 Talmudische Studien, XIII., in Rudelbach 
2 OiTw Tod GvuTavTos edvoUs cUyyevns Kai ay- and Guericke’s Zeitschr. fiir die luther. Theol. 


XLoTEVS KOLVOS O apxLEpE’s EOTL, TPUTAVEVWY LEV u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 593 f 


NOTES. 517 


wherefore He needed not for Himself to present an expiatory sacrifice, 
but only for the people, and, inasmuch as this fully accomplished its end, 
He needed not to repeat the same.—Entirely misapprehending the rea- 
soning of the author, Ebrard supposes that even the first half of the propo- 
sition, ver. 28, is ikewise to be referred to Jesus. The author, he tells us, 
presupposes as well known, that Christ has been as well dvdpuro¢ acvé- 
vecav Exwov (according to chap. v.) as viog teteAewwpévog cic tov aldva (accord- 
ing to chap. vil.), and is here recapitulating (!) the two. Thus, then, 6 
vouog yap. . . aodévecay contains a concession (!) having reference to chap. 
y., and the thought is: “the law (in so far as it has not (!) been annulled) 
demands of all high priests (consequently (!) also of Jesus) that they be 
avdpwro Eyovtec aodévercav; the sworn word of promise, however (given 
after the law), proceeding far beyond and above the same, constitutes as 
high priest the Son for ever perfected” (!). A misinterpreting of the 
meaning, against which even the opposition of 6 véuoc . . . 6 Adyoc dé, as 
a manifest parallel to of pay... 6 dé, ver. 20 f., ver. 23 f., ought to have 
kept him.—rj¢ pera tov vduov] The author did not write 6 wera rov vdpor, 
according to which the Vulgate and Luther translate, because he wished 
to accentuate é6pkwpocia as the principal notion. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LXI. Vv. 1-3. 


(a) Chap. vii. has an introductory passage (vv. 1-3), which sets forth the fact 
that Melchisedec and Christ correspond in their priesthood to each other, and thenan 
argument to prove the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to the Levitical, because 
it is after the order of Melchisedec. This superiority is set forth, 1. as connected 
with the matter of tithes, vv. 4-10; 2. as connected with the inability of the 
Levitical system to accomplish the end proposed (reAeiwore), vv. 11--19; 3. as con- 
nected with the appointment with an oath, vv. 20-22; 4. as connected with per. 
manent life, vv. 28-25; 5. as connected with the completeness of the single 
sacrifice, vv. 26-28. 

(b) yap of ver. 1, evidently connects vy. 1-3 with vi. 20 b. The object of these 
three verses, accordingly, is to set forth the fact that the priesthood of Christ and 
that of Mel. are of the same order. For the accomplishment of this object, the 
writer brings out with emphasis the great and fundamental point in which their 
priesthood differs from the Levitical—the point in connection with which all the 
other distinguishing peculiarities of the Melchisedec-Christ-priesthood naturally 
arise or manifest themselves. He thus prepares the way for the most impressive 
and effective presentation of the detailed argument which follows. 

(c) From the connection of the verses with vi. 20 6, we might naturally have 
expected the form of statement to be: For Jesus, the Son of God, was made like 
to Mel., in respect to the permanent character of his priesthood. Instead of this, 
we find the author beginning with Mel., as the subject ; and it is said of him, that, 
being made like the Son of God, he abides a priest continually. This change of 
form, however, was easily adopted by the writer, because of the fact that the name of 
Mel. was the closing word of the preceding chapter. The meaning, with either 

37 


578 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


form, must be essentially the same.—(d) With reference to the interpretation of 
the passage, accordingly, it must be noticed, that the subject under discussion, in 
this section of the Epistle, is the priesthood of Christ, and that the comparison of 
Christ with Melchisedek relates only to this point. When it is said, therefore, 
that Mel. was without father and mother, and that he had neither beginning nor end 
of life, the meaning of the writer is not: that Melchisedek as a man differed from 
all other men, having no descent from ancestors and existing always; but that, 
in respect to his priestly office, he did not depend on the tracing of a genealogy, as 
the Levitical priests did, but had his priesthood “ continually abiding.” There is in 
ver. 3 a parallelism, each part of which consists of three elements,—the last of the 
three explaining the force and meaning of the first two. Without father, without 
mother, that is to say, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor 
end of life, that is to say, abiding a priest continually. The last-mentioned 
phrase, by the exigencies or accidents of the sentence, is put in a verbal form; 
but, when the thought is carefully examined, it is evident that the writer had 
in mind the iikeness of Mel. to Christ in the points just mentioned, and thus that, 
if the sentence had been written in precise accordance with the leading idea, it 
would have read wjre.... Eyov, pévon 68 ispedc etc. T. digv, Adwuowty TO vid 
tov Geov.—(e) We may believe that the writer did not intend to make any formal 
declaration respecting Melchisedek, for the purpose of explaining to his readers 
who or what that O. T., personage was. Such a declaration was unnecessary and 
was hardly to have been expected. But in his setting forth of the exalted 
character of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with the priesthood known to the 
Jewish system, he takes this remarkable case of a priest, who suddenly appears 
on the scene, in the O. T. history, having his priestly office in its full privileges 
and prerogatives, and disappears again as suddenly, still having it and still in 
life—a priest who rests his claims on no tracing of his genealogical line, and who, 
so far as the narrative goes, has no recorded beginning or ending of his official 
life—and he makes him serve as a means of accomplishing the end which he has 
in view. 

(f) In the presentation of the case of Melchisedek, the writer gives the details 
of the brief O. T. story, and afterwards moves, in the development of his thought, 
in the sphere of these, and of the Psalm-passage already cited which refers to 
him, just as he does in all the other parts of the Epistle where he quotes from the 
O. T. These details however, do not—as the careful reader will notice—belong 
to the leading thought of this passage (vv. 1-3). The verb to which Mel. is sub- 
ject is wévec of ver. 3, and the important or essential words connected with the , 
subject, in its relation to the verb, are those of the earlier part of ver. 3. The 
words of vy. 1, 2 set forth only what is secondary, so far as the present sentence is 
concerned, and what is to find its use and emphasis in the verses which follow 
(4-10). The significance of the name of Melchisedek and of the place where he 
was king is not alluded to afterwards, but it is probably brought out as giving a 
certain additional fitness and force to the comparison between him and Jesus. 

(gy) The view held by Alford and some other writers, that Melchisedek is here 
declared to be a person differing from common men in a mysterious and wonder- 
ful manner—not having been born in the ordinary human way, and not having 
been removed from the world by death—rests on the assumption that the author of 
the Epistle could not have used the case of Mel. as illustrative, without intending to 
make some dogmatic statement respecting him, an assumption which is neither 


NOTES. 579 


necessary nor capable of proof. This view is, also, exposed to three serious, if not 
fatal objections :—1. that the author of the Epistle is so far from making any full 
and clear affirmation on the subject, that even such writers themselves are com- 
pelled to admit (as Alf. does) that, “when they come to inquire what high and 
mysterious eminence is here allotted to Mel.,” they “have no data whereon to 
decide” ; 2. that the O. T. gives, in the story in Genesis, not even the slightest 
hint of any such mysterious eminence, and makesno allusion whatever to Melchisedek 
elsewhere, except in the Psalm-passage cited in v. 6; 3. that we have no reason, 
independently of what is supposed to be discovered in these verses, to believe that 
any man since Adam has been actually without father or mother, beginning of 
days or end of life, and, on the other hand, every reason to believe that no such 
man kas existed. 

(h) The phrase pare apyiv juepOv k.7.A. is, as Liinem. says, not to be limited to 
the beginning and end of the priesthood (as Hefmann and some others hold), but 
is to be taken as meaning, that nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his 
birth or death. But the reference of the whole sentence is to the priesthood, and 
these words, by reason of this reference, are to be understood as indicating that 
Mel. had an office which was independent of the record of birth and death, and 
was, therefore, permanent by virtue of a life-force (comp. ver. 16), in contrast to 
the Leyitical priests. 


LXII. Vv. 4-10. 


(a) The whole of this passage has reference to the matter of tithes, as con- 
nected with the story of Melchisedek and Abraham. The subject is presented 
in three points: 1. vv. 5-7; 2. ver. 8; 3. vv. 9, 10, as, also, set forth by Ltine- 
mann, in his note. It is to be observed, however, with respect to the second 
point, that the fact of death and life as bearing on the priesthood is not here 
considered independently, as it is in vv. 23-25, but in relation to the taking of 
tithes. 

(6) As to the words and phrases of this passage, the following points may be 
noticed. 1. The writer takes special pains to set forth the exaltation of Mel., as 
illustrating that of Christ. This is evident from his mode of expression ; comp. 
mndixoc, with the imperative G@swpeire calling attention to it; the placing of 
6 maTpiapyn¢ at the end of the sentence (ver. 4), as showing that the head of the 
Jewish race acknowledged the dignity of Mel. ; the manner in which the exaltation 
of the Levitical priests above the rest of the descendants of Abr., is presented in 
ver. 5, and in which they are then made inferior to Mel., in that the latter was 
above Abr. himself; the adding of the fact of the blessing which Mel. pronounced, 
as indicating elevated position.—2. There can be little doubt that Liinem. is 
correct in his explanation of Sewpeite (ver. 4) as an imperative ; of kata Tov vduov 
(ver 5) as qualifying évroAyy Eyovow; of é& avrav (ver. 6) as referring to the sons 
of Levi; and of the connection of ver. 7 with ver. 6 by dé—ver. 7 being the 
major premise of a syllogism and ver. 6 the minor, while the conclusion is left 
to be supplied from the evident suggestion of the two verses.—3. With reference 
to the question where the writer found the declaration alluded to in the words 
paprroobuevoc bre CH (ver. 8)—whether in the silence of Gen. xiv. or in the words 
of Ps. ex. 4, or in both—the fact that the expression is in a positive form; the 
presence of the participle wapr., when compared with japrupeiras, followed by the 


580 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Ps., passage, in ver. 17; and the introduction of the verse from the Ps. in con: 
nection with the allusion to the priesthood as by virtue of a life-force, vv. 16. 17, 
favor the second supposition. If this view is correct, however, it does not invoive 
the necessity of believing that Melchisedek never died—4. The statement that 
Levi paid tithes to Mel., because he was in the loins of Abraham, who was his 
great-grandfather, is suggestive as to the question of the propriety of interpreting 
the popular language of the N. T. writers according to the ordinary rules and 
usage of such language. 


LXITI. Vv. 11-19. 


(a) The superiority of Christ as priest after the Melchisedek-order is presented 
in these verses (see note LXI a) as connected with the inability of the Levitical 
system to accomplish the end proposed, namely, the perfecting of the worshipers. 
The development of this subject is as follows:—1. If the Levitical priesthood 
could have secured the end, no other priest of a different order, would have 
arisen, vv. 11, 12; 2. Such a different priest, however, has arisen, as is shown (z) 
by the fact, that our Lord came from a different tribe; namely, from that of Levi, 
vv. 13, 14, and (y) by the fact, that the source of His priestly office and power is 
different from that of the Levitical priestly office, vv. 15-17; 3. Accordingly the 
old priesthood is set aside and a better one introduced. 

(6) The first of these points (vv. 11, 12) is rendered more emphatic by the 
suggestion, that, if the priesthood was to be changed, it would involve the change 
of the entire legal system, since this institution was the central and fundamental 
thing in that system. This explanation of ver. 12 and the parenthetical clause of 
ver. 11 is objected to by Liinem. He holds that there are two co-ordinate 
thoughts, which the writer designs to bring out—that the Levitical priesthood, 
and also the Mosaic law, have lost their validity; Ver. 11, in its parenthesis, shows 
the close connection of the priesthood and the law, and implies that, if the former 
is imperfect and unsatisfying, the same is true of the latter; ver. 12, on the other 
hand, is simply a corroboration of the parenthesis of ver. 11. But there is no in- 
dication in the passage of any such co-ordination of the two thoughts. As the 
priesthood is the one subject of this whole section of the epistle, and of this entire 
chapter, so it is the one subject of this passage. The law comes in only in two 
- places, here and in ver. 19; and, in both cases, in a parenthetical and secondary 
clause. The emphasis is wholly on the points mentioned above—that, if the old 
priesthood had been sufficient, there would have been no new and different one ; 
that a new one has been established ; and that the provision establishing the old 
one has been removed. The explanation given in this note, on the contrary, 
satisfies all the demands of the passage and bears along the thought in the most 
simple and natural way. 

(c) Alf. renders et év oiv by the English if again. He and Bleek carry back 
the thought to vi. 20 6. Liinem. connects immediately with vv. 5-10. As related 
to the development of the main idea Alf. and Bleek are probably correct, but it 
may be that the writer intended, in vv. 5 ff., to suggest the imperfection of the 
Levitical priesthood, though of course, only subordinately, to the principal thought 
of those verses.—(d) The insertion of the words 6 Aad¢ yap x.t.A. parenthetically, 
in ver. 11, instead of placing them in their more natural position after that verse, 
was undoubtedly for the purpose of carrying the additional force of the suggestion, 


NOTES. osl 


which they contain, into the conclusion expressed in tic éte «7.4. Such an 
arrangement of sentences is characteristic of Paul, and may be observed e. g. in 
Rom. y. 15-17 as related to the preceding and following context.—(e) R. V. gives 
law as a marginal rendering of vowov (ver. 12). This rendering is proved to be 
incorrect, here, by the fact that the writer is speaking of the Levitical priesthood ; 
by the fact that vevouwobérytac must refer to the Mosaic law ; and by the fact that 6 
vouoc is used in ver.19. It wasthe vital relation between the Levitical priesthood and 
the particular law to which it appertained, that was to be emphasized —( f) yag 
of ver. 13 proves the truth of the negative implied in tig éte ypeia x.7.A. of ver. 
11. In thought, though not grammatically, it may be regarded as covering both 
ver. 13 and vy. 15, 16. yap of ver. 14, on the other hand, gives the proof of the 
statement of ver. 13. Ver. 15 and ver. 13 are co-ordinate, not ver. 15 and ver. 
14.—(g) The distinction between the Mel. priest and the Levit., which made 
them to be of two “different orders,” is set forth in ver. 16. The latter was 
appointed in accordance with, and by virtue of, the rule or provision of an earthly 
temporary ordinance (kata vduov évtoAqje capKivyg) ; the former by virtue of the 
power of his own indestructible life-force (kata divayev Cuyg axatadirov), The 
words are suggested, on the one hand, by the provisions of the Mosaic law, and, on 
the other, by the fact respecting the story of Melchisedek which is noted in ver. 3 
(uate .... Cwec), and by the declaration of Ps. cx. 4. apxivyg has reference here 
to what is external and passing away, rather than what is evil, or what is merely 
physical. Zw7j¢ axatad, denotes, not endless life as a general idea, but the indis- 
soluble life in Christ Himself—(h) The variation in the arrangement of the words 
in the Ps.-passage, in the different places where it is cited, will be noticed by the 
careful reader. The arrangement is in accordance with the emphasis desired in 
each case. 

(i) Vv. 18, 19, being introduced by yap, are grammatically, and in the 
immediate connection of thought, united with vv. 15-17. They serve to show 
that the argument of vy. 15, 16 may properly be urged, because the Psalm-passage 
really involves what is said in vv. 18, 19. But, as related to the main idea of the 
whole passage (vv. 11-19), they may be regarded as suggesting the conclusion of 
the argument, or the summation of the thought (see (a) above): “There is a 
disannulling,” ete.—(j) As to the words of these two verses, it is to be noticed: 
1. that uév of ver. 18 and dé of ver. 19 are correlative; 2. that yivera is correctly 
explained by Liinem.—if the grammatical connection only is considered—as mean- 
ing results i.e. in the declaration of God, Ps. ex. 4; if the development of the 
leading thought is considered, however, the meaning takes place may be suggested. 
The translation of A. V. and R. V. there is may, possibly, be regarded as including 
the two; 3. that évr0A7 refers to the ordinance respecting the Levitical priesthood, 
and not to the whole law. This is evident from the use of évr0/7 in ver. 16, and 
from the distinction made, both in this verse (évT04%7 and véuoc) and in vy. 11, 12, 
between the institution of the priesthood and the law, as between a part and 
the whole; 4. that the words dofevéc and avadeAée are to be determined in their 
special force and application by the TeAeiwove of ver. 11; 5. that the parenthetical 
clause (ovdév yap x.7.4.) reasons from the whole to the part—as the law made 
nothing perfect, so the ordinance respecting the priesthood was weak, etc.; 6. 
that the hope is “better” because sure to be realized; 7. that in the words 6? 7¢ 
éyyifouev t@ beg there is a foreshadowing of a thought which has its development 
in the next section (viii. 1—x. 18). 


582 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


’ LXIV. Vv. 20-28. 


(a) The explanation which Liinem. gives of the construction of vv. 20-22 is te 
be adopted, as is also his view respecting the words to be supplied with xa écox 
ov x. dpkwu. (namely, iepeb¢ éor~v yeyovic), The arguments which he presents 
for the supply of these last-mentioned words, rather than Tovro referring to éevoay, 
7.4. of ver. 19, or dtabyxyg éyyvog yéyover, are conclusive. These verses, how- 
ever, are not to be regarded, (as he supposes), as having a sort of parallelism with 
vv. 18, 19,—the former verses setting forth one element in the superiority of the 
everlasting priesthood, vv. 15, 16, 17, and these latter verses setting forth a second 
element. The parallelism of vv. 20-22 is with vv. 11-19 and vy. 4-10, and they 
present a third point of superiority in the Mel. priesthood above the Levitical. 
The view of Uiinem. is incorrect, because the object of vv. 15-17 is not to set 
forth the everlasting priesthood of Christ after the order of Mel., but the fact that 
it is by virtue of the life-foree in Himself (which is, indeed, indestructible), and 
not of an ordinance of the law.—(b) The parenthetical passage, in its relation to 
the development of the argument, is kindred to the similar passages in vy. 11, 19, 
though there is a slight difference occasioned by the demands of the thought in 
each case.—(c) The fact that here the words of the Psalm-passage: “The Lord 
sware” are introduced, as they have not been before—the argument here requiring 
them,—and the fact that in «peirrovog dvabjxng we have again a foreshadowing of 
the idea specially brought out in the next chapters, will be remarked by the 
attentive reader. 

(d) In vv. 23-25 the fourth point in the writer’s presentation of Christ’s 
superiority as Mel.-priest (not the third, as Liinem. holds, see (a) above) is set 
forth. This fourth point is the everlasting and unchanging character of the priest- 
hood.—(e) Of the words in these three verses it may be said :—1. that mtapapévew 
may be understood either of continuing in life, or in the priesthood. Liine- 
mann holds the former view. The parallelism of the clauses, however, favors the 
latter: they are many in number, because death prevents their continuance in 
office; he is one. permanent -priest, because he abides ever in life;—2. that 
azapaBarov is probably dealt with in’the right manner by R. V. (comp. also 
A. V.)—being rendered in the passive sense in the text, unchangeable, and in the 
active in the margin, that doth not pass to another. The possibilities of the case are 
such, that both meanings must be recognized ; but the probabilities favor, in some 
degree, the passive sense. See Bleek Comm. on Heb. Ist. ed. Vol. II. pp. 396 f. 

(f) Vv. 26-28 present the fifth point of the argument (see Note LXI a). 
The main thought of these verses is that of the sinlessness of Christ, in contrast to 
the infirmity of the Levitical priests, as making the sacrifice which He offers 
sufficient and complete, while theirs needed to be constantly repeated. This pas- 
sage, again, is introduced by ydp in a grammatical subordination to the verses 
which immediately precede, but logically, and in the development of the argu- 
ment, it evidently has an independent foree—(g) The distinction made by 
Liinem. in the reference of écv0c and the two following adjectives—that they 
point to Christ’s relation to God, to men, and to Himself—is not improbably 
correct, but it. is doubtful whether it can be affirmed as certainly so.—(h) With 
respect to Ka? juépav (ver. 27), the most satisfactory explanation may be this: 
that the high priest, being the head of the priesthood, is viewed as fuifilling all 
the requirements of the O. T. system, and that all the other offerings are looked 


NOTES. 583 


upon as, in a sense, pointing to and finding their consummation in the great offer- 
ing of the High-priest on the day of atonement.—(i) vidv of ver. 28 is translated 
by R. V., and correctly, a Son. The word is used here as it is in i. 2, and, though 
it refers to Christ, it does not, like 6 vide, designate Him as the Son of God, but 
describes Him as in contrast to the O. T. high-priests. He was not one who held 
an office merely as a man, but one who stood in the relation to God of a Son in 
the highest sense; as, in i. 1f., He is set forth, by the use of the same word, in 
contrast to the prophets. The peculiarity of the writer’s style (noticed already 
+n connection with v. 5, and elsewhere) by which, in an artistic, rhetorical way, 
he unites one part of his epistle with another in the forms of expression employed, 
is again manifest in this place—(j) That the writer, as he draws near to the 
closing section of his Epistle, should anticipate its thought and expressions is not 
strange. It seems, even, to be a part of his plan to do so; comp. ii. 17 f. iv. 14 ff 


084 ‘THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 1. éni roic Aeyouévore] B: év roic Aeyouévorc, Explanatory gloss.—Ver., 
2. Recepta: kui ovK avdpwroc¢, But cai is wanting in B D* E*8, 17, It. 
Arabb. Euseb. Already rejected by Mill. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, 
Tisch. Alford.—Ver. 4. Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, have et pév yap. 
Defended also by Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 504, Obs.), and 
Reiche. But yap cannot be referred back to ver. 3, and upon the referring of it 
back to ver. 2 the addition, ver. 3, would become aimless and inexplicable. More 
in keeping logically, and better attested (by A B D* 8, 17, 73, 80, 187, Vulg. It. 
Copt., al.), is the reading: et wév ovv, already commended to attention by 
Griesbach, and adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, which 
is accordingly to be preferred.—Instead of the Recepta TOv ieptwv TOV Tpoo- 
gepévtwv (approved by Bloomfield, who, however, encloses the first T@v within 
brackets, and Reiche), Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have rightly adopted 
merely TOv tTpoogdepé6vTwy, Preferred also by Delitzsch. tTOv iepéwr, to the 
rejection of which already Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined, is an 
elucidatory gloss. It is condemned by the decisive authority of A B D* E* 8, 17, 
67** 73, 137, al.. Vulg. It. Copt. Aeth. Arm.—rév] before véuov in the Recepta 
(recently contended for by Bloomfield and Delitzsch) is to be deleted, with Lachm. 
Tisch. and Alford, after A B &* 17, 57, 80, al., Theodoret. The later addition 
of the article is more easily to be explained than its omission— Ver. 5. Elz.: 
xotnonc. But atl the uncial mss., many cursives, Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, 
Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. have 7 9:4o0e7¢, which also is found in LXX. Ex. 
xxv. 40. Commended by Griesbach. Rightly adopted already in the edd. 
Erasm. 1, Ald. Stephan. 1, 2, and recently by Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, Lachin. 
Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch and Reiche.—Ver. 6. In place 
of the Receptu vuvi 6é, Lachm. reads, but without sufficient authority (B D* 
Ath.): viv dé The more euphonious vvvi dé is protected by A D** D*** EK 
L&, min., and many Fathers.—Instead of the Receptu tétev xe (B D*** 8*** 
min. Damasc. [once] Theophyl. [cod.]), there is found in the edd. Complut. 
Plantin. Geney. the peculiarly Attic form : tetvuyyxe. Thisis supported by 47, 
72, 73, 74, al., Athan. (thrice), Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Best 
attested isthe form : 7 é7v yev (by A D* K L&*80, 116, 117, al., Athan. Oecum. 
Theophylact), which is therefore rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 
and Alford.—Ver. 8. airoic] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, 
Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, after B D*** E L &***, 
likewise, as it seems, almost all min. Chrys. Damasc. al.—Lachm, and Tisch, 1 
and 8 read avrotc, But the attestation of the latter (A D* K &* 17, 39, a/., 
Theodoret) is not at all decisive, and the accusative,seeing it requires the conjoining 
with peu@duevoc, opposed to the context ; see the exposition. —Ver. 10. 7 dcad7jxn] 
Lachm.: 7 d:ad {Kn [ov], after ADE. ovis found, indeed,also with the LXX. in 
most Mss. (but not in the Cod. Alex.) ; yet, nevertheless,since it forms a tautological 


CHAP. VIII. 1. 585 


addition, and does not correspond to the Hebrew original ("377 Nt 3), it probably 
arose only by a mechanical repetition from the preceding dca¥yKky wov.—Ver. 11, 
Recepta: 7ov_tAnoiov, But the weighty authority of all uncial mss. (B: Tov 
ToAeityv), most cursives, as well as that of Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Arm. It. al, 
Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret, Damasc. Aug. requires the reading: tov woAiTn», 
already presented by the edd. Complut. Stephan. 1, 2, al., and later approved by 
Bengel and Wetstein, as also adopted by Griesbach, Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, 
Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others—a7d pcxpodv] Elz, 
Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: a76 pekpodv avtav, But airav 
is wanting in A B D* E* (?) K 8, 17, 31, 61, 73, 80, al., Copt. Arm. It. Vulg., 
with Cyr. Chrys. al. Already suspected by Griesbach. Rightly deleted by Lachm. 
Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford.—Ver. 12. xai tov ayapti@v avTav 
kai TOV avoui@v avTov] The concluding words: kai TOV avou“ldv avTar, have 
been taken for a gloss by Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford (comp. already 
Beza and Grotius) ; and in accordance with B 8* 17, 23, Vulg. Copt. Basm. Syr. 
Arab. Erp. rejected. They are also declared suspected by Delitzsch. But in 
favor of their retention (Lachm. Bloomfield, Tisch. 7, Reiche) decides partly the 
preponderating authority of A D EK L &8*** al., partly the recurrence of the 
same words on the repetition of the citation x. i7. The addition might 
easily be overlooked on account of the homoioteleuton. 


Vv.1-13. [On Vv. 1-6, see Note LXV., pages 595, 596.] Not merely, how- 
ever, as regards His person is Christ highly exalted above the Levitical 
priests ; the sanctuary, too,in which He fulfills the office of High Priest, 
is highly exalted above the Levitical sanctuary. For Christ sustains His 
high-priestly office in the heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself, 
of which as the archetype the earthly tabernacle, in which the Levitical 
priests fulfill their office, isa mere copy. So much the more excellent 
is the priestly ministry of Christ, in proportion as the Covenant of 
which He is the Mediator is a better covenant, because resting upon the 
foundation of better promises. The character of this promised New Coy- 
enant is a more inward, spiritual one; and by the promise of a New Cov- 
enant the Old is declared to be outworn and no longer serviceable. 

Vv. 1, 2. [LXV b-e.] Kepatav 6é] Now a main point is. K egadacov is 
not accusative absolute (Bengel), nor yet the ordinary accusative with a 
Aéyw tovro to be supplemented (Ebrard), but nominative, and apposition to 
the whole ensuing proposition : towirov . . . avOpwroc, ver. 2. Comp. Rom. 
vill. 3. Just as xe@aaaov dé are also the kindred formulas: 1d dé péysorov, 
TO dé dewvétatov, 76 éxyaTov, Td TeAevtaiov, etc., very frequently prefixed to a 
whole clause by way of apposition! The expression ce¢d/acov itself is 
here understood by many expositors in the sense of “swm,;” according to 
which the author would express the intention of immediately compre- 
hending or recapitulating the substance of all his previous disquisition in 
a single statement.? This signification, however, although linguistically 


1See Kiihner, II. p. 146, Obs. 2. haee esto summa”), Carpzoy (“ut rem sums 

2So Laurentius Valla (“in summam au- matim et uno verbo complectar”), Stengel, 
tem”), Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p, 405), Co< 
Calvin, H. Stephanus, Grotius (“ post tot dicta nybeare, M’Caul, ete. 


586 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


justified, is here cnadmissible, since the author is passing over to some- 
thing essentially new; a recapitulation of the previous argument accord- 
ingly does not take place at all. But neither is the anarthrous «e¢aaAavov— 
although in itself this is not inadmissible—to be taken as equivalent to ré 
Kedadaov, as is done by Theophylact (iva eliza 1d péysotov Kai ovvextixdrepor), 
Bleek (“the essential thing, to which all else is subordinated”), Ebrard 
(“the keystone’), Bisping (“the core of all”), Stuart, Delitzsch, Riehm, 
Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. pp. 464, 481; Alford, Maier, Ewald, and others. 
For, besides the further main point in the superiority of the N.'T. High 
Priest over the Levitical high priests, here to be mentioned (namely, His 
ministering in a better sanctuary), the author has yet before his mind the 
elucidation of a third leading distinction (that of the better sacrifice pre- 
sented by Christ). Comp. ix. 9 ff.—émi roi¢ Aeyouévorc] cannot be referred 
back specially? to that which has already been said. For therewith the 
participle present Aeyowévorcg doesnot agree; eipyuévorce must have been 
put instead of it. Nor, accordingly, can the sense be: “in addition to 
that already treated of” (Calov, Wolf, Rambach, Peirce, Storr, Ebrard, 
al.). On the contrary, é7é must be taken in the signification: “upon 
the supposition of,” “in the case of,” as ix. 17 and frequently, and ézi 
Toig Aeyouévorg has essentially the same meaning as the genitive tév Aeyo- 
pévov. Thus: nowa main point in the case of those things we are speaking of 
(or: in our argument) is the following. —With the utmost violence does Hof- 
mann tear the words asunder,’ in that he will have kegaAauv dé separated 
from ézi roi¢ Aeyouévowc, and to the latter would supplement apyvepetoww, and 
renders ; “besides those who are called high priests, we have a High Priest 
who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty.” That, 
moreover, the thought thus resulting would be a senseless one,—inasmuch 
as it would then*follow that Christians have several sorts of high priests,— 
has already been pointed out by Nickel. For how arbitrary it is when 
Hofmann seeks further to twist the statement, gained with so much toil, 
in the sense: “ that the Christians possess a High Priest, compared with 
whom those who are so called have for them no significance,” hardly needs 
to be observed.—rowirov] is a preparation for the following é¢ é«afoev «7.2. 
Wrongly does Béhme refer it back to rowitroc, vii. 26, and Carpzov to bp7Aé- 
repog TOY ovpavav yevouevoc in the same verse. The latter, moreover, with 
an erroneous accentuation of the éyouev: “habemus omnino talem pontifi- 
cem sc. inpyAdrepov Tov obpavor, quippe qui adeo consedit ad dextram Dei 
év Toi¢ ovpavoic,” in connection with which the progress of the discourse is 
lost sight of, and the fact remains unnoticed that the centre of gravity in 
the statement, vv. 1, 2, is contained only in ver. 2.—dc éxaficev év deEia Tod 
Opdvov Tig weyadwobvyc év Toic ovpavoic] who has sat down at the right hand of 
the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Ps. ex.). Comp.i.3: &afioev év defi rig 
ueyadwobvac év dbypndoic—The opinion of Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, 


1As is assumed by Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, 2 Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 406, and so still 


Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, in his commentary, p. 302 f. 
Carpzoy, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, Ebrard, Ew- 3In Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 110. 


ald, and many others. 


CHAP. VIII. 2. 587 


Klee, Bleek, and Alford, that the author designed by é«d@ccev, too, to 
indicate a point of superiority in Christ over the Levitical high priests,— 
inasmuch as the latter, when they entered the Most Holy Place, instead 
of sitting down were required to stand,—is far-fetched. There is nothing 
in the context to lead to such a supposition. It is otherwise (on account 
of the express opposition there met with éoryKev . . . éxaficev) chap. x. 11, 
12. év roice obpavoic] belongs to éxafioev, not to THe peyaAwoivync (Bohme), 
since otherwise the article would have been repeated; still less to the 
opening words of ver. 2(Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405 f.), since 
in that case rv dyiwy tay év Toic odpavoic AecTovpyéc Would have been the only 
natural expression, the rhythmical proportion of vy. 1, 2 would have been 
destroyed, and the év twyAoic, 1. 3, parallel to the év roi¢ ovpavoic in our pass- 
age, would have remained unnoticed as regards its coherence with that 
which precedes. 

Ver. 2. Declaration of the capacity in which Christ has sat down at the 
right hand of God: as a sacrificing priest of the true sanctuary and taber- 
nacle, which the Lord erected, nota man. Ver. 2 is to be joined without 
any comma to ver. 1. For only the qualification of the éxafcoev x.7.4., ver. 
1, which is first added by means of ver. 2,—not merely the fact of the 
kafica in itself, since this had already been often mentioned in the epistle, 
—contains the new main feature which the author aims at bringing into 
prominence.—rov dyiwv] is not masculine’ but neuter ; it denotes, however, 
neither the holy things,? nor that which is required for the priestly service,’ nor 
“such holy things as stand in essential relation to the oxyv7 aan6aq” but 
the sanctuary,® in which (or: in regard to which) the priestly service is fper- 
formed. Comp. ix. 8,12, 24, 25, x. 19, xiii. 11.—Synonymous with rév 
dyiwv is the r#¢ oxnvge, added by way of elucidation; and from the adject- 
ive of the latter, 77¢ aA7OcvqHc, We have also to supply in thought the 
corresponding adjective Trav a276cv dv (comp. ix. 24) to the foregoing trav 
dyiwv. For even the earthly high priest was a tév dyiwv Aetoupydc ; only a 
TOV dyiwy TOV GANnOLVav AevToupydc he was NOt.—Aecroupydc¢ ] Comp. Aectoupyeiv, 
x. 11, and Aecroupyia, ver. 6, ix. 21; Phil. ii. 17; Luke i. 28. With the classic 
writers, Aectovpyée denotes the bearer of any public office, or office of the 
State. In the general sense of a “servant” it stands i.7; Rom. xiii. 6; 
Phil. ii. 25. But already with the LXX. (Neh. x. 39; ef. Ecclus. vii. 30, al.) 
it is spoken specially of him who discharges priestly service. In accord- 
ance therewith it has here, too (comp. ver. 3), as well as Rom. xv. 16, the 
signification: sacrificing priest. tic a2nOu7jc] The oxyvq is called true, not in 
opposition to the false, but as the archetype ® existing in heaven in contrast 
with the earthly image of the same (ver. 5), which latter, as is always the 


1Oecumenius: apxvepevs Pye TOV HyLagpev- Béhme, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, De- 


wv map avTov avipwrwy’ nuav yap eat. ap- 
xtcpevs, Primasius, Cajetan, Schulz, Paulus, 
Stengel. 

2 Luther, Hunnius, Balduin. 

8Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Ewald. 

4 Kurtz. 

6 According to Erasmus, Jac. Cappellus, 


litasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
513; Alford, Maier, and others, specially: the 
Most Holy Place. 
6 Comp. Wisd. ix. 8: etmas oikoSounoar vaor 
. Kal... SvoLacTpPLOV, MiMAMA EKHVIS aylas, 
qv TponToimacas am’ apx7s- 


988 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


case with the copy in relation to the original, could be only something 
imperfect. jv érnfev] Comp. Ex. xxxiii. 7.—é xipioc] is here God, as else- 
where in our epistle only in the O. T. citations.—é kipioc, vik avOpwroc] 
Comp. oxyvig ob yetpororgror, 1X. 11; ov yecponoinra aya, ix. 24. 

Ver. 8. [LXV /.] Subsidiary remark in justification of the expression 
Aecrovpyéc, ver. 2. The Aectoupyeiv, or the presenting of sacrifices, is just 
something essential in the fulfillment of the office of every high priest; a 
Aecroupyéc, or sacrificing priest, must thus Christ also be. By the statement, 
ver. 3, the argument itself is not interrupted. For enclosing the verse 
within a parenthesis, with Cameron, Stengel, and others, there exists there- 
fore no reason.—yap] the explanatory namely. On zag yap .. . kabiorara, 
comp. Vv. 1: wag yap apyrepede . . . Kadiotata Ta Tpog TOV Vedv, iva Tpoogéepy 
dpa te kai Yuoiac. O8ev avayxaiov] sc. jv notéoriv.2 For the author knows. 
only one single sacrificial act of Christ, an act performed once for all (not 
one continually repeated), as is evident partly from the parallel passages, 
Vil. 27, ix.12, 25, 28, x. 10, 12, 14, partly from the preterite tpocevé yxy in 
our passage.—é yew tu Kal tovtov, 6 tpocevéyky] that also this (High Priest) 
should have somewhat that He might offer up. By the ri the author under- 
stands Christ’s own body, which He gave up to death as a propitiatory 
sacrifice for the sinful world. The indefinite mode of expression by ri, 
however, was chosen just because the reference to the sacrifice in this 
place was only an incidental one, and that which was intended could the 
less be misunderstood by the readers, in that immediately before, vii. 27, 
it had been declared by means of éavrdv avevéyxac In What the sacrifice of 
Christ consisted. 

Vv. 4, 5. Return (oiv) from the subsidiary remark, ver. 8, to the main 
thought in ver. 2 (rév dyiwy Kat tHe cK THE aANOLvAc, Hv «.t.A.), and 
proof for the same. : 

Ver. 4. A sacrificial priest Christ can only be, either in the earthly or 
the heavenly sanctuary ; for a third, besides these two, there is not. The 
author now proves, ver. 4, that He cannot be a priest in the earthly sanc- 
tuary, whence it then follows of itself that He must be so in the heavenly 
one.—ei 7] not: if He had been(Bohme, Kuinoel), but: if He were. To e 

“pev obv qv éxi ye We have, moreover, neither * to supply pévov, nor * apytepetbe 
or iepete. It signifies nothing more than: if He were now on earth, had 
His dwelling-place upon earth.—oid’ av qv iepetc] He would not even be a 
priest. Incorrectly Bleek, Bisping, and Ewald: He would not even be a 
priest—not to say a high priest. For the augmenting oidé can refer only 
to the whole proposition, not specially to iepeic, since otherwise ovd” ieped¢ 
av 7v must have been written. ieee is therefore to be taken as a more 
general expression for the more definite apyepete. Yet more erroneously 


1Syriac, Beza, Piscator, Owen, Bengel, beqr. des Hebrderbr. p. 505; Alford, Maier, 
Bleek, de Wette, Hofmann, Komm. p. 306; Moll, Ewald, M’Caul, al. 
Woerner. 8 With Grotius, Wolf, and others. 
2Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Schlichting, 4 With Zeger, Bengel, Carpzov, Heinrichs, 
Schulz, Bohme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Hofmann, © Béhme, and others. 
Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 407; Riehm, Lehr- 


CHAP. VII. 3-5. 589 


Primasius, Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Carpzov, and others: ‘“ He 
would not be that unique, real, or true priest, that everlasting priest after 
the manner of Melchisedec ”__which, without an addition, the words can- 
not by any means signify.—The reason why Christ, if He were dwelling 
upon earth, could not at all be a priest, is contained in the éyrav ...Ta 
éapa. For on earth there are, of a truth, the legally appointed priests 
already present, and with these Jesus, since He belonged not to the tribe 
of Levi, but to the tribe of Judah (vii. 14), has nothing in common.— 
bvrev Tov TpoogepsrvTwr KaTa vojov ra dapa] since assuredly there are present 
(évrwv has the emphasis), sc. on earth, those who in accordance with law (i.e. 
according to the norm of the Mosaic law) offer the gifts, namely the Levites, 
among whom Christ could not be reckoned. évtwv and tpooge povtTov 
designate that which is still existing at the time of our author. To take 
the words as participles of the past (Peshito, Vulgate, Grotius,! Braun, and 
others), is already forbidden by the present Aatpebovowy, ver. 5. 

Ver. 5. The author at once attaches to the proof given, ver. 4,—that 
Christ must be High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary,—the testimony of 
Scripture that the earthly sanctuary, in which the Levitical priests officiate, 
is a mere copy of the heavenly, thus only an imperfect sanctuary. 
Schlichting: Vel rationem quandam diy. autor his verbis exprimit, cur 
Christus, si in terris esset, sacerdos esse non posset, nempe quia sacerdotes 
illi, qui in terris degentes offerunt, umbrae tantum serviunt coelestium ; 
vel tantum a contrario illustrat id, quod de pontifice nostro dixerat, nempe 
eum esse veri tabernaculi ministrum, legales vero pontifices umbrae tan- 
tum et exemplari illius coelestis tabernaculi servire. Not to enclose 
within a parenthesis (Griesbach, Schulz, Scholz, al.), since the same easily 
joins on syntactically to ver. 4, and diagopwrépac, ver. 6, points back to its 
subject-matter. oirvvec ] nimirum qui.— trodeiypate Kat oxi] a copy and 
shadow. trodeiypate corresponds to the deydévta oor in the ensuing 
citation, and denotes here (otherwise iv. 11) that which is shown only by 
way of hints, or only in its general outlines (comp. ra brodelyparta, ix. 28), 
has thus the notion of a merely imperfect sketch or copy. Yet more em- 
phatically is the notion of imperfection brought out by means of kai oKeg. 
For o«céd stands not merely opposed to the caua, as the unsubstantial to 
the substantial? but also to the eixov, as the shadowy image melting into 
obscurity, and only to be recognized in its exterior outlines to the likeness 
distinctly struck off, containing light and color, and enabling one to 
recognize the original3—arpetovow] is taken unnaturally by Calvin, 
Pareus, Bengel, Peirce, Schulz, and others in the absolute sense: “ who 
serve God in a copy and shadow.” The datives irodeiyyate Kat oKig TOV 


1 This writer with the explanation cntirely 3Comp. Heb. x. 1: oKidy...0vK auTny THY 


foreign to the subject: “ Erant, nempe quum cixéva tov mpaypatwy ; Achilles Tatius, i. p. 47 
psalmus iste seriberetur.” (in Wetstein ad x. 1): otrw TédvnKev Kal THS 


2Col. ii. 17; Josephus, de Bello Jud. ii. 2.5: cixévos 7 axa; Cicero, de Officiis, tii. 17: Sed 
oxvav aitnoopevos Bactrcias, is "pmacev eavT@ nos veri juris germanaeque justitiae solidam 
zo gaya; Philo, de confus. linguarum, p. 348; et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus; UD 
with Mangey, I. p. 434. bra et imaginibus utimur. 


590 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


éxovpaviwv form the object of the verb (comp. xiii. 10): “who minister (as 
priests) to that which is but a copy and shadow of the heavenly.”— 
Aatpetvecv here, by virtue of the connection, entirely equivalent to Ae:toup- 
yeiv; in general, however, of wider signification, and differing from 
zecrovpyelv as the Hebrew 722 trom NW.—rév érovpaviwy] not “of the 
heavenly things” (Luther), “of the heavenly relations and _ facts 
of redemption” (Ebrard), “of the heavenly relations and divine 
thoughts ” (Moll), “of the ideal possessions in general, belonging to the 
kingdom of God” (Tholuck); but: of the heavenly sanctuary. Comp. the 
citation immediately following, as also ver. 2 and ix. 28, 24.—ka¥ac xeypn- 
patiotat Mwivogc| according to the response, or divine revelation, which Moses 
received. The passive ypnyatifeoda in this sense only in the N. T. (xi. 7; 
Matt. ii. 22; Acts x. 22, al.) and in Josephus (Antigq. iii. 8. 8, xi. 8. 4).— 
ériredew] denotes here not the completion of that which is already begun. 
What is meant is the execution of that which had previously only been 
resolved on.—The citation is from Ex. xxv. 40. The yap, even as ¢7oiv, 
belongs to the author of our epistle, on which account épa yap gyow is to 
be written without placing a comma after yap.—oyaiv] sc. 6 ypyuatiopdc, the 
divine response, or, since in Exodus (xl. 1) God is expressly named as the 
speaker: 6 Jed¢ (Heinrichs, Bleek, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, 
Kurtz, al.), not 7 ypa¢4 (Bohme).—rdrra] is wanting with the LX X.—xara 
tov torov] in accordance with the pattern (VI34), 7. e. corresponding to the 
archetype presented to the contemplation of Moses in the manner of a 
revelation, or by means of a vision. Comp. Acts vil. 44. Over-refined, 
indeed, although linguistically not less admissible than the other, is the 
interpretation of Faber Stapulensis, Rivetus, Schlichting, Grotius, Lim- 
borch, Storr, Bleek, and Maier, that in connection with rizo¢ we have to 
think of a mere copy of the archetype, so that the Levitical priests served 
in priestly guise the copy of a°copy.—rév derySévta] LXX.: tov dedevypévor. 
—v r¢ bper] upon the mount, namely Sinai. 

, Ver.’6 repeats, in the form of an antithesis to vv. 4, 5, the main propo- 
sition of the new section, that Christ accomplishes His priestly service in 
the heavenly sanctuary (ver. 2); in the progress of the discourse, however, 
advances an additional argument in favor of this main proposition: in 
that the naturalness of the fact asserted 7s evidenced by the superiority of 
that covenant which-has been brought in by Christ. As, therefore, the — 
author (vii. 20-22) had deduced from the higher priestly rank of Christ 
the more excellent nature of the covenant brought in by Him; so here, 
conversely, from the better nature of the covenant established by Him, is 
inferred the higher order of His priestly ministry. vvvi dé forms the 
opposition to ei pév obv, ver. 4, while dcagopwrépac points back anti- 
thetically to the contents of ver. 5.\—vvvi dé] not in the temporal, but in 
the logical sense: but now.—d:adopwrépag Aeitovpyiac] inasmuch, namely, as 


1 Theophylact : ’Exeivov Tov vonuatos npTyTar ylas’ TovTéoTLV, OVK EaTLVY a’TOU H AELTOUPyLa 
TadTa, Tod Ei pév yap Hv emt yjs, OvK av Hv lepevs*-  ToLavTy, ola » TV emi ys apxLepewy GAA’ ovpa- 
vuvi 6€ py wy, dyoiv, émt yns, aAAa Tov ovpavoy vLos, ATE TOTOV EXOVTA THS OiKELas TEAETHS TOP 


€xwv lepateiov, Suahopwtépas eméruxXe AevToup- ovpavov. 


CHAP] VIlI.°G) 1. 591 


the oxy, in which He fulfills His office, is the aay@ivq, Gv Exnkev 6 
Kiplog, ovK avOpwroc (ver. 2)—On the comparative dcagopwrépac, 
see at li. 4—xai after 6c renders distinctly apparent the inner corres- 
pondence of the two principal members in the proposition, ver. 6.—yeoiry¢} 
Mediator (ix. 15, xii. 24; Gal. tii. 19, 20; 1 Tim. ii.5; LXX. Job ix. 88), 
inasmuch as He has proclaimed the New and better Covenant, and has 
sealed the same by His death on the cross. [On Vy. 6 b-13, see Note 
LXVL., page 596.]—jrc] which, as such. Introduction of the proof 
that the covenant of which Christ is made the Mediator is a better one 
(vii. 22), z.e. affords full satisfaction to the heart seeking salvation and 
deliverance, which the Mosaic covenant was incapable of pacifying. 
[LX VI a-c.] The proof for this superiority the author derives from the 
fact that the New Covenant has been enacted upon the ground of (é7/ [ef. 
vil. 11; Acts xiv. 3]) better promises, 7. e. promises more excellent with 
regard to their subject-matter. The expression vevoyodétryrac is chosen 
not in order to denote the similarity of nature in the two covenant- 
foundings, but, after the analogy of the Pauline mode of expression, Rom. 
lil. 27 (ix. 81), in order to oppose to the Mosaic law, hitherto in operation, 
the New Covenant as in some sense a new law (comp. vouove pov, ver. 10) 
now come into force.—xpeitroow érayyeAiac| What is meant is without doubt 
the several factors in the contents of the passage from Jeremiah cited 
immediately after—to wit, the promise of the forgiveness of sins (comp. 
ver. 12), which the Old Covenant was not able to bring about (Rom. viii. 
3; Gal. iii. 10 ff), in connection with the character of innerness of the 
New Covenant in general (vv. 10, 11), as opposed to the externalism of the 
Old.—The explaining of the kpeirrovec érayyedia, with Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, Bengel, Carpzov, Whitby, 
M’Lean, Bisping, and others, of everlasting blessedness and the other eter- 
nal blessings of Christianity, in opposition to the purely terrestrial and 
temporal promises of Mosaism (the peaceful possession of the land of 
Canaan, a long life upon earth, etc.), is to be rejected ; because—apart 
from the contradiction in which this interpretation stands with the eluci- 
dation given by the author himself by virtue of the ensuing citation from 
Scripture—it is, as Bleek rightly observes, improbable that the author 
should have referred the promises deposited in the Mosaic law to merely 
earthly things, in place of referring them to the object of which he under- 
stands the promise already imparted to Abraham—the bringing in of the 
great salvation for the people of God in the person of Christ——The view, 
too, that the érayyeAiae of the New Covenant are called xpeitrovec because 
they are better guaranteed (Stengel and others), has the context against it. 

Vv. 7-18. Evidence from Scripture that the New Covenant rests upon better 
promises than the Old, and consequently is a better covenant than that. God 
Himself has, by the fact of His having promised a new covenant, pro- 
nounced the former one to be growing obsolete. 

Ver. 7. [LXVI d.] Justification of the «peitrovo¢g and xkpeitroory, 
ver. 6.—ei jv] if it were (vii. 11, viii. 4)—7 zpory éxeivy | sc. diadiKn. On 
the superlative, quite in keeping with the linguistic usage of the Greek, see 


592 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. : 


Winer, p. 229, [E. T. 244.] Obs. 1.—apeyrroc] faultless (Phil. ii. 15, iii. 6), 
satisfactory, sufficient. Theodoret: 1d dueurroc avti tov Tedeia TéDErKe.—ovK 
av devtépac éfyteito téxoc] place would not have been sought (sc. by God, in the 
O. T., or in the passage of Scripture immediately adduced) for a second 
(covenant) ; 7. e. it would not have been expressed by God Himself, that a 
second covenant is to come in beside the first, and replace it. In this 
general sense é{yteito tér0¢ is to be taken, and the form of expression in 
the apodosis to be explained from a mingling of a twofold mode of con- 
templation (oi« av devrépa éfyteito kai devtépag ovK qv av téroc: a second 
would not be sought by God, nor would there be any place for a second). 
No emphasis rests upon réo¢; on which account it is over-refining, when 
Bleek finds in é{yreiro réro¢ the reference that to the New Covenant, 
according to ver. 10, the place was assigned in the hearts of men, while 
the Old was written upon tables of stone. 

Ver. 8. Making good of the assertion, ver. 7, that the Old Covenant was 
not free from fault, and God on that account made known His purpose 
of establishing a New one. Since pweu@éuevocg manifestly corresponds 
to the Gweurroc, ver. 7, and there the non-freedom from blame regards 
the covenant itself, not the possessors thereof, it is more natural to com- 
bine airoi¢ with Aéyer' than—what is certainly possible in a gram- 
matical respect (see the Lexicons)—to join it to peyupdpuevoc.2—Aéyer] se. 6 
§edc. Comp. the thrice-occurring 2éyec Kipio¢ in the following citation (vv. 
8, 9, 10).—airoic Aéyer] He saith unto them, namely, the possessors of the 
xpoty d.abyKn.—The citation beginning with idot, and extending to the 
close of ver. 12, is from Jer. xxxi. (LX X. xxxviii.) 31-34, after the LXX., 
with slight deviations.—Aéyer xbpioc] so in the LXX. of the Cod. Alex. The 
Cod. Vatican. and others have ¢yoi xipioc.—In place of kai cvvteréow 
éri tov olko® ’IlopayA kai éxi tov oixov ’Iotvda, it reads in the 
LXX. : Kad Siafyoowat TE oixw "lopaya Kai TH. 0iKw ’Iobda. Perhaps a change 
designedly made in order to characterize the New Covenant as a com- 
pleted or perfect one. 

Ver. 9. Ob Kata tHv SiabhKyv, Hv eroinoa Toic ratpdow abrir] negative 
_ unfolding of the foregoing positive expression xaw4v (namely, a cove- 
nant): not after the manner of the covenant ("135 9) which I made for 
their fathers, i.e. one qualitatively different therefore, and that as being a 
better one.—jv éxoigca] LXX.: jv diebéunv.—roig ratpdow aitov] in the ° 
Hebrew DMAN-NN, with their fathers. The mere dative with éroinoa ex- 
cludes the notion of reciprocity in the covenant-founding which has taken 
place, and presents it purely as the work of the disposition made by 
God.—év juépa éridaBouévov pov x.t.2.] in the day (at the time) when I 
took hold of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt 


1Faber Stapulensis, Piscator, Schlichting, 2Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecume- 
Grotius, Limborch, Peirce, Michaelis, Chr. nius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Er. 
Fr. Schmid, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Schmid, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs, 
Stein, Bloomfield, Reiche, Comment. crit. p. Béhme, Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, 
65 sq. ; Conybeare, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Maier, Hofmann, al. 
and others. - 


CHAP. VIII. 8-10. 593 


(aro yw oesind on} pm Bi), Amn unwieldy but not exactly 
incorrect construction (see Winer, p. 531 [E. T. 571]), in place of which 
Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. 11, in citing the same words of 
Scripture, has chosen the less cumbrous év 7 éeAaBduyv. The note of 
time characterizes the covenant as the Mosaic one—ér] for; not: 
“because,” as protasis to xay® «.7.A. as the apodosis (Calvin, Bhme, Hof- 
mann, al.).—«ayo] emphatic personal opposition to aizoi: and conse- 
quently I also concerned not myself about them.—réyex xipioc] LXX. (Cod. 
Alex. too): ¢yot Kiproc. 

Ver. 10. Justification of the diabpxnv xawhy, ob Kata tiv dabjKny K.7.2., 
vv. 8, 9, by a definite indication of the nature of the covenant to be insti- 
tuted.—érr airy 4 diabgxn K.7.A.] for this (or the following) is the covenant 
which I will institute for the house of Israel. atzn introduces with emphasis 
the material characterization following with d:dovd¢ K.7.2.—oixo¢ "Iopaji] 
here embraces the whole nation, while in ver. 8 it denoted one of the two 
kingdoms into which it had been divided.—pera ra¢ juépac éxeivac] after 
those days, i. e. after the days which must first have elapsed, before the 
yuépac mentioned, ver. 8,—in which the New Covenant is to come into 
existence,—begin to dawn.'—Aéyec xipuc} LXX.: gyoi Kipvoc—didoic] So 
LXX. Cod. Alex., while Cod. Vatic. and other mss. of the LXX. have 
didov¢ ddoo. In the Hebrew ‘AD}. didot¢ does not stand for décw (Vata- 
blus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). Just as little have we to supple- 
ment it with déow (Heinrichs, Stengel, al.), or with eivé or écouae (Kuinoel, 
Bloomfield), or dcadjoouae aitav (Delitzsch). Nor have we to join it to the 
following éxvypayw (so BOhme, but undecidedly, and Paulus), in such wise 
that we must render «ai before ézypdvo by “also.” It attaches itself 
grammatically to the preceding d:adjooua. In order to obviate any 
unevenness of construction, we may then place a colon after dcdvoav 
aitov. The separation, however, of the xai éxiypayo from that which 
precedes is not actually necessary, since instances of a transition from 
the participle to the tempus finitum are elsewhere nothing strange. See 
Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 573].—dé:dvoia] mind, i.e. soul, innermost part (2p). 
Accentuation of the character of innerness in the New Covenant, as 
opposed to the externalism of the Old. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 3.—xapdiac] either 
accusative (Deut. iv. 18, v. 22, al.) or genitive (comp. Ex. xxxiv. 28; Num. 
xvil. 2,3, al.). In favor of the latter pleads the singular in the Hebrew 
original; in favor of the former, the reading of the Cod. Alex.: éni ra¢ 
xapdiac. We cannot take into account, in favor of the accusative, the 
greater conformity to the character of the Greek language, according to 
which, on account of the plurality of persons (airév), one must also 
speak of xapdia in the plural. For without regard to this distinction the 
singular d:avocav has already been just placed, and in like manner the 
singular t7¢ yerpdc is placed, ver. 9.—In place of éxi kapdiac aitev 
émtypaww avtotc, the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. has: émypaypw avtoic ext 
ta¢ kapdiag avtov, and the Cod. Vatic.: éxi xapdiac avtaév ypdipw aitove.—xai 


i Wrongly Oecumenius: motas nuepas; tas THs e&ddov, év ais EAaBov Tov vomov. 


38 


594 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Eoopat avroic eig Gedy x.7.2.] Comp. already Ex. vi.7; Lev. xxvi. 12, al.; 
also 2 Cor. vi. 16.—The Hebraizing eivace eic¢ Q My) asi. 5. 

Ver. 11. The consequence resulting from the didévac véyorg sig tHv 
Sidvoiav avtov x.t.A., ver. 10. Comp. Joel iii. 1, 2; 1 John ii. 27.—xai ob pH 
didazwow] and then they shall not instruct (Winer, p. 472 [E. T. 507]; Butt- 
mann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 183 LE. T. 211]), as regards the 
sense equivalent to: and then it will not be needful that they instruct each 
other; the reason for which is stated immediately after, in the 7c ravreg¢ 
eldjoovoiv pe «.t.A. On the intensifying ob «4, see Winer, p. 471 f. [E. 
T. 505 f.J—rov rodirgy avtoi] his fellow-citizen. Soin the LXX., Cod. Vatic., 
and most Mss., while Cod. Alex. has in the first member ror adeAgév, in the 
second rv rAqoiov.—yvotr] in the Hebrew the plural : 3)I.—ixpov] With 
the LXX. in most Codd.: puxpod avtdv.—ard puxpod éwe peydov aitov] 
Young and old (Dd973-731 DIUPD"). Comp. Acts viii. 10; LXX. Jer. vi. 
13; Jonah iii. 5; Gen. xix. 11, al. 

Ver. 12. The inner ground of this communion with God and this 
knowledge of Him.—é7] not: “that” (Michaelis, ad Peire.), but: for.— 
iewe éoouar Taic adixiatc avtov] I will be gracious (N08) to their unrighteous- 
ness, i. e. will forgive and forget the same.—a<adc«ia:] in the plural, in the N. 
T. only here, but of frequent occurrence with the LXX. Designation of 
the alienation from God in its single outbreaks and forms of manifesta- 
tion.—xal tov duaptiav Kai Tov avouiov avtov] LXX. merely: kat tov duap- 
riav avrav, in accordance with the Hebrew: WY~73i8 89 DONO, 

Ver. 13. The author derives the result from the Scripture testimony, 
vv. 8-12.—év 76 Aéyew awh] in that He (sc. God) saith : a new (covenant). 
Comp. év 1 AéyeoBa, iii. 15, and éy 7r@ sbrordga, i. 8.—reradaiwxev THv 
mpatnv| He hath made the first old (contrary to linguistic usage, Ebrard: 
“relatively older”), i.e. has declared it to be out of date, out-worn, and 
no longer serviceable —ra/aiv] a word belonging to a later period of the 
Greek language, elsewhere ordinarily used inthe intransitive sense: “ to 
grow old,” and generally in the middle voice (as a little below, and i. 11) ; 
is found likewise in the transitive sense, “to make old,” in Lam. iii. 4; 
Job ix. 5. To abolish or render obsolete the word itself does not signify ; 
but rendering obsolete is the natural consequence of pronouncing out of 
date or outworn. The author accordingly does not directly express notion 
of abrogation by reraiaioxev in this place,—a sense, moreover, which, on 
account of the following ra2%aotyevov, would here be inappropriate,—but 
leaves the reader to divine it.—rd dé raAaoipevov Kai ynpdoKov éyyi¢ apavio- 
uov] but that which is growing ancient and is becoming infirm with years, is 
near to disappearing or perishing.—yypdoxew] ordinarily said of human 
beings (to become enfeebled with age, senescere); then, however, also of 
things, comp. e.g. Xenoph. Ages. xi. 14: 4 pév tov cdpuatog ioxic yypdoxer, 7 
di the Wuyne poun .. . ayhpatéc éotw.—The author says sparingly : near to 
disappearing (comp. xatapac éyyic, vi. 8), in that he takes his standpoint 
at the time of the divine promises just quoted. But if God in the time 
of Jeremiah already designated the Old Covenant as that which is nigh 


NOTES. 595 


unto ruin, it was therein necessarily declared by implication, that now, 
after so long a time is passed and the New Covenant has already been in 
reality brought in, the Old Covenant, as to its essence (if not yet as to its 
external manifestaiion), must have been already entirely abrogated, must 
have entirely lost its force and validity. 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LXV. Vv. 1-6. 


(a) The second section of the second leading division of the Epistle begins 
with viii. 1. So far as its argument is concerned, it ends with x. 18; but, if 
the hortatory passage belonging with it is included, as it should be, it does not 
end until xii. 29. The superiority of Christ, as the instrumental agent employed 
by God to carry on the N. T. system, to the instrumental agents (the Levitical 
priests) employed to carry on the O. T. system, which is set forth in this section, 
consists in the fact that He is the minister of a higher sanctuary which is con- 
nected with a better covenant. There are two subordinate sections :—1. referring 
to the higher sanctuary; 2. referring to the better covenant. These two subjects 
are developed, in a more general way, in ch. viii. (1, vv. 1-6 a,; 2, vv. 6 6-13), 
and in a more particular and detailed manner, in ch. ix. (1, vv. 1-14; 2, vv. 
15-28). They are finally restated, in a summary form, in ch. x. (1-18). By the 
fullness of his presentation of this subject, by the threefold repetition alluded to, 
and by the fact that he places it at the end of his whole discussion, and makes all 
which precedes move towards it, the author shows that this was, indeed, the 
Kepadaiov emt ToI¢ AEyouéevolc, 

(b) That xegddav (ver. 1) means chief point, not sum, is proved by the fact that 
what the writer says in this verse cannot be separated from what he adds in ver. 
2,and by the fact that what is contained in the two verses, or in the whole 
passage (vv. 1-6), is not the sum of what he is saying in the whole epistle, but 
only a principal matter in the development of the main subject. That xed, may 
mean either a chief point (as Liinem.) or the chief point (as Bleek and others) 
cannot be denied. The argument presented by Liinem. as establishing the former 
meaning—that, in addition to the chief point mentioned in vv. 1, 2, there is 
another (the better sacrifice) in ix. 9 ff_—is without any proper basis, for there is 
no such second chief point. The point here alluded to is that which is suggested in 
vv. 1-6—that Christ is the minister of a higher sanctuary connected with a better 
covenant. The thought of the better sacrifice is only a subordinate one, which is 
connected with the presentation of this principal thought. The writer sets forth 
but one chief point. Whether he speaks of it as a, or the, chief point is uncertain, 
but, in whichever way he presents it, it is the only one which he deems it neces- 
sary to bring before the minds of his readers. The antecedent probability, under 
the circumstances, would seem to be, that a writer of such a rhetorical character 
would desire to give the emphasis here which belongs to the expression “ the chief 
point.”—(c) éri has here the meaning upon, as resting upon—as the head, which 
is a part of the body, rests upon the body, or as Alf. says “lying, as it were, by 
and among.” Jn of R. V. is, in accordance with the English idiom and usage, a 
satisfactory rendering.—(d) The close connection between the earlier and later 
parts of the Epistle, already noticed in y. 5, is manifest again in the words 6c 


596 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


éxdOicev «.7.A,, as compared with i. 3—(e) That tv dyiwy (ver. 2) means the 
sanctuary (R. V. text), and not the holy things (R. V. marg.), is indicated by the 
connection of the word with oxyvjc, and by the fact that it is repeatedly used in 
ch. ix. as referring to the sanctuary.—( f ) The course of the writer’s thought in vv. 
3-6 a seems to be the following: As a high priest, He must hold the office in 
connection with some sanctuary. The office, however, as related to the earthly 
sanctuary, is already filled by others. He, therefore, belongs to the heavenly. 


LXVI. Vv. 6 5-18. 


(a) It will be noticed that, both in this chapter and the next, the writer closely 
unites the sanctuary and the covenant. He does not present them as two inde- 
pendent things in their relation to the subject in hand, but, by the form of his 
sentence in ver. 6, and again in ix. 15, he shows that,as the minister of the higher 
sanctuary, Christ is also, and as it were necessarily, the mediator of a better cove- 
nant; ver. 6, diapopwrépag tétuxe Aectoupyiag bow Kai KpeitTOVOg K.T.A,;—ix. 15, Kai 
dia TovTO Shere Kang pecityg éotiv.—(b) The “ better” character of the cove- 
nant is here connected with the fact, that it is established as an institution or 
system (“ enacted” R. V.) upon the foundation of better promises. The “ better” 
character of the promises is indicated in the following verses, and the central 
point of the thought is, that the end in view is to be accomplished—that which 
the religious system aims at, namely TeAciworc, involving forgiveness of past sin 
and conformity to the will of God, is to be certainly secured. See vii. 18, 19.—(c) 
The argument to prove that the covenant and the promises are better, is similar 
to that respecting the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood in vii. 11 ff— 
namely, that, unless there had been imperfection, no new arrangement would have 
been made, whereas such a new arrangement has been introduced. That the new 
covenant is established is proved here by a citation from Jer. xxxi. 31-34, which 
constitutes the central O. T. passage of this section, after the analogy of others in 
other sections already noticed. To this argument there is added another, in ver. 13, 
namely, that the fact that the covenant to be made is, according to the O. T. 
passage, called new implies that the former one is old, and, like all things old, is 
ready to pass away. 

(d) With reference to the words of vv. 7-13 it may be remarked :—1. that 
avrove in ver. 8 has a slight preponderance of external evidence as compared with 
avroic, but the other reading and the construction of the sentence adopted by 
Liinem., and placed by A. R. V. in the margin, should be recognized as possibly 
correct—if indeed, they should not be preferred;+2. that the words émi rov 
oixov with ovvreAéow, as contrasted with the ie dative toi¢ watpaow (ver. 9) 
and 7® oixw ver. 10, may suggest the thought that the covenant is not merely 
made with, but imposed or enjoined upon, the people by God (éveTeiAaro ix. 20).— 
8. the description of what the new covenant will be or involye begins with 
Siov¢e of ver. 10, which is thus equivalent to déow, in substance of thought ;— 
4. that the same element of the legal system is here hinted at, which seems to lie 
at the basis of Gal. iii, 20—the weakness connected with the necessity, for its sue- 
cess, that men should perfectly fulfill the requirements of the law ;—5. év TO 
aéyew corresponds with év 76 Aéyeobai of iii. 15, only that here the active is used, 
because God is the subject of the following verb, while in iii. 15 the mere words 
of the cited passage are thought of as setting forth a historical fact. 


CHAP, IX. 597 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 1. 7 tpéty] Elz.: 7 sporty oxnvy. But the addition oxyvA is condemned 
as a gloss by the fact of its being wanting in all the uncial mss., in many cursives, 
in Syr. utr. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg., with Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cyril, Chrys. 
Damasce. Theoph. Photius, al. On the ground, too, of internal evidence it is to be 
rejected, since, on the one hand, the coherence with viii. 13, and through that 
with viii. 7 ff, leads to dca@7K7 as the main idea to be supplemented ; and, on 
the other hand, the expression 7 tpor7 oxyvj, ix. 1, would be made to denote 
something quite different from that which the same expression denotes in ix. 2. 
For, while in ver. 2 the outer division of the tabernacle is indicated thereby, in 
ver. 1 only the first or Old Testament, earthly tabernacle, in opposition to the 
New Testament, heavenly one, thus something entirely dissimilar, could be 
intended by this expression—Ver. 2. After dprwy, B, Basmur. add kai 76 
xXpvoovv GvutargHpcov, and in return omit the words ypvootv GuulcatHpLov 
kai, ver. 4. Violent intentional transposition, with a view to the removal of the 
archaeological difficulty.—Instead of a@yca, Lachm. writes d@yca ayiwy, after A 
(ay:a* aywv) D* E, It. But aya ayiwv is a mere slip on the part of the copyist, 
occasioned by ver. 3, and is to be rejected as devoid of sense.—Ver. 5. Xepovin] 
A: XepovBeiu, B D*** (and so Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8): XepouBeiv, D* 8: XepovPiv. 
In the case of the LXX., too, the Mss. are wont equally to vary as regards the 
final syllable of the word.—Instead of the Recepta 66£7¢, Griesb. and Scholz have 
erroneously placed in the text t7¢ d6&y¢. The article has against it all the 
uncial mss. and other witnesses.—Ver. 9. In place of the Recepta ka Ov (D*** 
EK L, min. It. Copt. Sah. Basm. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph.), Lachm. 
Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Delitzsch, Alford have rightly preferred the 
reading kav’ 7#v, in accordance with A B D* 8, 17, 23* 27, al., Vulg. Slav. codd. 
Damase. Oecum. (comment.). Already approved by Mill, Prolegg. p. 1046, and 
placed by Griesb. upon the inner margin. The xa¥ 6v, as affording an easier 
mode of appending to that which precedes, is a later correction of the more 
difficult and ill-understood ka? 7v.—Ver. 10. The Recepta reads: kai dikace- 
uace capkéc, But kai is wanting in A D* x* 6, 17, 27, 31, al., with Cyr. 
(twice) in Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. al.; and in place of d:cka:ouacr, A B yx, ten 
cursives, Cyril., and many versions have d¢xac@uata, while in D* It. Sahid. 
there is found dccaiwua, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford have 
therefore adopted d:kac@uara capkéc, which was already approved by Grotius, 
Mill, Prolegg. p. 1355, and Bengel, and recommended by Griesb. Delitzsch and 
Reiche likewise give it the preference. This reading is in reality to be regarded 
as the original one. For it is more easily explicable that ditacauara should, on 
account of the foregoing datives, be changed into dccacéuact, and joined on to 
them by means of «ai, than that the kai dcxavéuaor, if it already existed, should, 
on account of the closing word émvxeiueva, be converted into dicacauata,—Ver. 11. 
In place of the Receptat Gv weAAévrov, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after B D* 
It. Syr. utr. (yet the Syr. Philonex. has the Recepta in the margin) Arab. petropol. 


598 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


and some codd. of Chrys: tév yevouévwv. Defended by Ebrard. But the 
reading is not in keeping with the carefully chosen diction of our author, and its 
sense: “ High Priest of the good things which have arisen,” does not commend 
itself. It is manifestly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by the presence of the 
foregoing Tapayevouevoc.—Ver, 12 etpauevoc] D* (E ?), 27, 44, 80, al., and some 
Fathers: etpduevoc.—vVer. 13. Elz.: tabtpwv kai tpadywrv. With Lachm. 
Bleek, Tisch. Alford, to be transposed into Tpadywv kai Tabpwr, in accordance 
with the decisive authority of A B D E 8, Cyr. Theodoret, Bede, Syr. Copt. Basm. 
It. Vulg. al.—Ver. 14, mveiuatog aiwviov] D* 8*** many cursives, Copt. Basm. 
Slay. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Didym. (?) Damase..al.: mveipatog ayiov. Inter- 
pretative gloss—In place of the Recepta cvveidyorv buav, Bengel, Knapp, 
Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 2, Alford read more suitably, in accordance with A D* K, 
44, 47, 67, al., Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. al. Athan. Cyr. Chrys. (comment.) 
Theodoret, Theoph.: cvveidyorv yuav. Recommended likewise by Griesb., 
and already placed in the text in the Edd. Complut. Geney. Plant.—To 
the mere Je@ Covre in the Recepta, Lachm., with A, 21* 31, 66 (in the 
margin), Copt. Slav. Chrys. (comment.) Macar. Theoph., has added the words kai 
aAyndtv@, These words are, however, to be deleted. They are a gloss from 1 
Thess. i. 9.—Ver. 17. pjrore] D* S* and Isidor. Pelus. iv. 113 (... obrw yap 
eupov Kai év TaAaoig avttypagorc): ay Té6Te.—Ver. 18. Instead of ov0’ in the 
Recepta, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, to 
write ov dé, in accordance with A C D E L, 4, 44, 52, Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.— 
9 TpaTn] D* E*It.: 7 tpoty dcadyxyn, Exegetical gloss—Ver. 19. Elz.; caTa 
voyov, But the better attestation by A C D* L S*** 21, 47, 71, al., Copt. 
Basm. Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theoph. requires the reading preferred by Lachm. 
Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford: kata tOv véuov,—In like manner is the article 
T@v wanting in the Recepta before tpaywv to be added, with Lachm. Tisch. = 
Alford, in Ges with the weighty authority of A C D E (D E, Aeth.: 
Tpaywv Kai-TOv pocyov) N* 80, al. mult. It. Vulg. Theodoret, ms.—So, in ees a 
the Recepta éppdvrice here and ver. 21, we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and 
Alford, in accordance with all the uncials, to write épavtioev.—Ver. 24. The 
order of the words followed by Lachm. in the stereotype edition, as well as 
recently by Tisch. in the ed. vii. and viii.: elo7A0ev ayca, rests only upon the 
testimony of A &, 37,118. In the larger edition of Lachm., therefore, this has 
rightly given place to the Recepta ayca eio7Aev.—Better attested than the 
Recepta 6 Xptordc is the mere Xprordé¢ (A C* D* ®&, al. (Cod. B in its original 
form extends only to ovveidyow, ix. 14]), preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 
8, and Alford.—Ver. 26. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloom- 
field, Delitzsch: viv dé Better Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with | 
ACL (?) 8,87, 39, 40, Orig. Chrys.: vuvi dé—duapriag] A &, 17,73. Lachm.: 
TH¢ auapriacg, Against C D*** E K L, almost all the min. Orig. (once) al. 
mult—Ver,. 28. obtw¢ cai] Elz. has only ovtwe. Against decisive witnesses (all 
the uncial mss., most min., many translations and Fathers).—After e1¢ cwortnpiar, 
Lachm. in the stereotype edition had added, with A, 31, 47, al., Syr. Philonex. 
Slav. codd. Damase., the words dca tiotewe. Rightly, however, has he deleted 
them in the larger edition. The addition is a complementary gloss, which has 
against it the testimony of C D E K L 8&, many min. versions, and Fathers, ot 
betrays its character as a gloss ‘by its changing position (Arm, 27, 31, 57, 61, al, 
have it before el¢ owrTypiar). 


CHAP, Ix. 1, 599 


Vv. 1-14. [On Vv. 1-14, see Note LXVII., pages 629-631.] The author 
has in chap. vill insisted upon the fact, as a second main particular of the 
superiority of Christ as a high priest over the Levitical high priests, that 
the sanctuary in which He ministers is a more exceiient one, namely, the 
heavenly sanctuary. He has made good this proposition by the considera- 
tion that no place would be found for Christ, as regards priestly service, 
in the earthly sanctuary ; and then has proceeded to show the natural- 
ness of the fact that He accomplishes His ministry in the heavenly 
sanctuary, by the proof that Heis the Mediator of a better covenant. This 
train of thought is still pursued in the beginning of chap. ix., in that 
attention is now finally called to the fact that in the arrangement of the 
Mosaic sanctuary itself, and the order of the priestly service corresponding 
thereto, there lies an indication on the part of God that Mosaism is not 
itself the perfect religion, but only an institution preparatory thereto 
(vv. 1-8). With this, however, is then connected, by means of one of 
those sudden transitions of which the author is so fond, the reference to 
the further truth, that, indeed, the Levitical sacrifices also, since they 
belong to the domain of fleshly ordinance, are not able really to atone; 
whereas the sacrifice presented by Christ, by means of His own blood, 
possesses, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, everlasting power of atonement 
(vv. 9-14), and thus athird main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ 
is introduced, the development of which occupies the author as far as x. 
18. [LXVII a.] ; 

Vy. 1-5. Description of the arrangement of the O. T. sanctuary as 
regards its essential component parts. 

Ver. 1. [LXVII b-e.] Eiyev pév ody nai 4 mpdry] sc. diadjxn. Against 
the supplementing of ox7v7 (Cameron, Peirce, Whitby, Wetstein, Semler), 
see the critical remark.—eiyev] had. éye is not written by the author, 
although the cultus of the Old Covenant was still continuing at the time 
when he wrote, not so much because—as is shown by ver. 2—it was his 
intention to describe the primitive arrangement thereof (comp. viii. 5), 
which is the opinion of Bbhme, Kuinoel, Stengel, and Tholuck, as, what 
is more naturally suggested by the coherence with viii. 18, because the 
Old Covenant had already been declared by God in the time of Jeremiah 
to be feeble with age and nigh unto disappearing, and consequently now, 
after the actual appearance of the promised New Covenant, has no longer 
any valid claim to existence..—yév oiv] now truly. Admission that that 
which the author is about to detail is indeed something relatively exalted. 
The antithesis, by which again this admission is deprived of its value 
and significance, is then introduced by ver. 6 (not first with ver. 11, as is 
supposed by Piscator, Owen, Carpzov, Cramer, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bis- 
ping, Maier, M’Caul, and others); yet in such wise that the material anti- 
thesis itself is first contained in the statement, ver. 8, which is connected 
syntactically only as a parenthetic clause.—xa/‘] also. Indication that with 


1Chrysostom: waet EAeye, TOTE Elxe, VOY OVK  —-TOTE yap Elxe, Pyoiv. "NoTe vir, Ei Kal EaTHKEY, 
exer’ Seixvuety 75 TOUTw a’THY ExKEXwpHKULaV’ OVK EaTLY- 


600 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the Old Covenant the New is compared, and possessions of the former are 
enumerated, which also (although, it is true, in a more perfect form) are 
proper to the latter.—éccacdyara Aarpeiac| legal ordinances! in regard to 
worship, i.e. regulations made by virtue of divine authority respecting 
the cultus.—/arpeiac] is genitive. To take the expression as «accusative 
(Cameron, Grotius, Hammond, al.), according to which d:cacépuara, Aatpeiac, 
and 7d aywv xoouxdv Would as three members be made co-ordinate with 
each other, is untenable; because the signification of d:caéuara in itself 
would be too extensive to fit in with the further development of ver. 1, to 
which the author himself at once passes over, from ver. 2 onwards. For 
as the statement 76 te ayiov koowixédv receives its more full explication by 
means of vv. 2-5, so does the discourse in vy. 6,7 return to the unfolding of 
the twofold d:cacéuara Aatpeiac, blended as this is in a logical respect into a 
unity of idea.—ré te dyvov Koopixdv] and the mundane sanctuary. Since, in 
accordance with the «ai, possessions of the Old Covenant are to be men- 
tioned, such as this has in common with the New,—while to the New Coven- 
ant there pertains no mundane, earthly sanctuary ,—ré te ayvov koowexdy Must 
be regarded as a concise mode of designation for kai ayy Ti, 76 KoouKdy, 
“anda sanctuary, namely the mundane.” That such is the meaning of 
the author, is indicated by the fact that the article is placed before this 
second member, although it ought properly to have been inserted before 
xoouixdv also. Yet the omission of the article in the case of adjectives 
placed after their substantives is not a thing unknown among other 
writers of the later period. See Bernhardy, Synt. p. 323; Winer, p. 126 
[E. T. 183]. Forced is the explanation of Delitzsch, with the adherence 
of Kurtz and Woeener, that xoouwcédv as an adjectival predicate is to be 
taken in association with elyev: “the first covenant had likewise dccacouara 
Zarpeiac, and its sanctuary as mundane, 7.e. a sanctuary of mundane 
nature.” Had the author intended the readers to suppose such a con- 
joining, he would also—equially as vii. 24, v. 14—have indicated the same 
to them by the position of the words. He must, in order to be under- 
stood, at least have written: siyev pwév oby Kai 4) mpary Sikacouata Aarpeiag 
kooutkév te Td dyecov. Under an entire misapprehension, further, does 
Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 408 f.,.2 Aufl.) suppose that 7é re dayiov 
xoouixév is not to be taken as a second object attaching itself to the dicaiyara 
Aatpeiac, but as a second subject joining itself on to 7 xpory,—a construc- 
tion which, upon the presupposition of the Recepta 4 xporn oxy being 
the correct reading, already Olearius adopted (comp. Wolf ad loc.), and 
upon the same supposition also more recently M’Caul maintained, in 
connection with which, however, 7é te dycov koonexdv would limp behind 
in an intolerable manner, and would afford evidence of a negligence of 
style, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews would least of all 
have been guilty of—The view of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Zeger, Carp- 
zov, and others, that ayiov is to be taken not in the local sense (sanctuary), 
but in the ethical sense (holiness, dy:éryc, sanctitas, mundities), is altogether 


- 1Wrongly Stengel: ‘“ Means of justification.” 


CHAP. Ix. 2-5. 601 


erroneous; since the expression chosen would be a remarkable one, the 
immediate sequel does not point thereto, and the more exalted seat of the 
cultus of the New Covenant forms the theme of the fresh train of thought 
opened up with the beginning of chap. viili—Quite as much to be disap- 
proved is the opinion of Wolf, who will have ayov to mean “vasa sacra 
totumque apparatum Leviticum.”—xoopixde] means : belonging to the 
world, worldly, mundanus. Comp. Tit. it. 12. The expression is equiva- 
lent to ériyewc, and to it émovpavioc stands opposed, as in general 6 
xkéovoc in the N.T. very frequently has its tacit contrast in 6 ovpavéc. 
Td aylov Koopuxdv 18 consequently nothing else than 7 oxy, fv énygev 
avdpuroc (comp. Vili. 2), Or 7 oKyv7 YELpoTo/yroc, touréoTl TavTHC THC KTiCEWC 
(comp. ix. 11), or ra yeiporoinra aya (ix. 24), and a twofold idea is ex- 
pressed in the adjective, first, that the sanctuary of the Old Covenant is 
one existing in the terrestrial world, then, that it is accordingly something 
only temporary and imperfect in its nature. Remote from the connec- 
tion are the suppositions of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others : 
that the Jewish sanctuary was called xocyixdv, because the access to the 
same stood open to the xécuoc, 2. e. the Gentiles; a statement, moreover, 
which possesses historic truth only with reference to a part thereof, the 
court of the Gentiles (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v.5, 2; Acts xxi. 28), 
while here the sanctuary as a whole must be indicated ;—of Theodorus 
Mopsuesten., Theodoret,! Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Bo6hme, Paulus, 
and others: because the Jewish sanctuary symbolically represented the 
universe; the holy place, earth; the most holy, heaven ; and the curtain 
before the latter, the firmament;—of Kypke, because the sense is: toto 
terrarum orbe celebratum (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. iv. 5. 2, where the 
Jerusalem high priests, Ananus and Jesus, are represented as tic 
Koouikne Bpyokeiac KaTapyovrTec, TpocKvvolmevol TE TOLS éx The olKovuévyc), Which, 
however, could only be said with reference to the temple, not with refer- 
ence to the tabernacle itself, of which the author is here specially think- 
ing.—Entirely baseless, finally, is the opinion of Homberg, that xoopixdv is 
to be apprehended in the sense of “adorned, well-ordered.” For only 
Kéopuoc, KoountiKdc, and Kkoopuytéc¢ are used for the expression of this notion ; 
never is koouixée put for it. See the Lexicons. 

Vv. 2-5. Unfolding of the collective idea 16 ayiov xooutxdy, as regards its 
several essential component parts. That the author has before his mind 
the Jewish sanctuary in its original form, i.e. the Mosaic tabernacle, is 
evident alike from the expression cx7v7, as from the use of the aorist 
xareoxevéodn. That, however, he likewise thinks of this original disposition 
as still preserved in the temple of his day, is manifest partly from the 
present Aéyerac immediately following, partly from the proposition : tovtwy 
J obtwe KaTeckevacpévov ... Eiciaciy, Ver. 6.—oKyvy yap Kateckevacdy 7 porn | 
for a tent was prepared (set up), namely, the first or anterior one (the fore- 


1THv oxynvny ovTws exadece, TUTOY EréxovTaV Gyta thy év TH yn ToActelay, Ta bE Aya TOV 
’ Xx Y n yn ’ 

Trev KécMov TavTés. KatameTaguate yap peow ayiwy To TaY ovpava@v évdiaiTnua. ATO b€ 70 

Seppetro SixH, Kai Ta ev avTAs eradeito ayia, xaTaméTagHa TOU OTEpEwuaTos EmANpOU THE 


ca 8€ ayia Tov ayiwy. Kar euiperto 7a mev xpetav. 


602 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


tent). oxyv% stands first as the general notion, and only acquires its 
nearer definition by the 7 spory afterwards brought in, without, how- 
ever, our having, with Beza, Bloomfield, and others, to place a comma 
after katecxevaody. That oxyvy 7 xpory is not to be combined immediately 
in one, as expressing the signification: “the fore-part of the tent” (so 
Valckenaer, who compares in ultimis aedibus, and the like ; also Delitzsch), 
is shown—although such acceptation presents no grammatical difficulty— 
by the corresponding oxy 4 Aeyouévy ayia ayiwv, ver. 3, whence it follows 
that the author is regarding the two divisions of the tent separated by the 
veil in front of the Most Holy Place as two tents.—zpéry] not temporal, 
but local.—karteokevacd7] namely by Moses, at the behest of God (comp. vili. 
5).—év 7 % Te Avyvia] se. éoriv (not wv, Alford, Kurtz, against which Aéyera 
and ver. 6 are decisive): in which there is the candlestick (or lamp-stand). 
Comp. Ex. xxv. 31-39, xxxvil. 17-24; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. 
I., Heidelb. 1837, p. 412 ff. In the temple of Herod, too, there was, 
according to Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. 5, only one lamp-stand 
in the Holy Place, while in the temple of Solomon there were ten of them 
present; comp. 1 Kings vil. 49; 2 Chron. iv. 7.—kai 4 tparefa kai 7 
mpod_ecie Tov aptwv] and the table and the setting forth of the bread (or loaves), 
i.e. Wherein is found the table, and the sacred custom 1s observed of plac- 
ing thereon the shew-bread. Comp. Winer, p. 590 [E. T. 636.] Wrongly 
do Vatablus, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bloomfield, and 
others explain 7 tpé3eoe tév aptwv as hypallage or antiptosis for oi aprox 
tHe mpodécewc. Yet more unwarrantably do Valckenaer (and similarly 
Heinrichs) maintain that 7 tpdrefa kai 4 tpdd_eow Tov aptwv is equivalent 
to 7 tparela TOv aptwor tHe Tpodécewe. According to Tholuck, Delitzsch, 
Alford, Maier, Kluge, and Moll, zpédeove is, like the Hebrew 12729, to be 
taken concretely, strues panum. But zpéeoc never has the passive sig- 
nification of strues. On the matter itself, comp. Ex. xxv. 23-30, xxvi. 35, 
xxxvii. 10-16; Lev. xxiv. 5-9; Bahr, lc. p. 407 ff—#ric] se. oxmy 4 mporn. 
Not conjoined with the mere #, because the fact alleged is something 
which is familiar to the readers —éyia] Holy Place (wtp): So (as neuter 
plur.), not, with Erasmus, Luther, Er. Schmid, Mill, Whitby, Heinrichs, 
and others, ayia (as fem. sing.), have we to accentuate the word. It stands 
opposed to the aya dyiwv, ver. 3, and denotes the Holy Place, or the outer 
portion of the tabernacle, in opposition to the Most Holy Place, or the 
more secluded, inner portion of the same. Likewise with the LXX. and 
with Philo, the plural 7a aya in this sense is interchanged with the sin- 
gular 70 dywv.—ayra, however, not ra aya, is placed, because the author 
was less concerned about mentioning the definite name coined for the 
expression thereof, than about bringing out the signification which this 
name has. 

Ver. 3. Merd] after or behind. Of local succession (Thucyd. vii. 58, a/.), 
in the N. T. only here.—rd debrepov kataréracua] the second veil (292). For 
before the Holy Place, too, there was a veil (JO2). On the former, comp. 
Ex. xxvi. 31 ff—oxyvq] se. Kxateckevdcty.—ayia dyiwv] Most Holy Place. 





CHAP. Ix. 3, 4, 603 


Periphrasis of the superlative (see Winer, p. 231 [E. T. 246]), and transla- 
tion of wap wap: 

Ver. 4. Ovucarjpiov] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer. 
The latter, and indeed as a golden censer, which was employed by the high 
priest on the great day of atonement, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de 
Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby, 
Schulz, Béhme, M’Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping, 
Alford, M’Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate 
(turibulum), and Theophylact. The altar of incense, on the other hand 
(wpa N31 or 3939 031), of which mention is made as a constituent 
part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Ex. xxx. 1-10, xxxvil. 25-28, xl. 5, 26, as a 
constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings vii. 48, 2 Chron. iv. 19, 
and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud. 
v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin translation in D E (altare), 
as well as by Oecumenius (ad ver. 7), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Broch- 
mann, Mynster (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff.), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, 
Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebriaerbr. p. 489 f., Obs.), Maier, 
Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Conybeare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. 
Instances from the classical writers in favor of either reference, see in 
Bleek, II. 2, p. 480 f. That a censer is intended may be urged from the 
language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of 
incense the expressions: 76 Juovactipiov Suucauatoc (Ex. xxx. 1,27; Lev. iv. 
7), 76 SuovactHpiov Tov Gvuapatwv (1 Chron. vi. (vii.) 49, xxviil. 18; 2 Chron. 
Xxvl. 16, 19), 7d BvovactHpiov 76 ypvoovy (Ex. xl. 5, 26, al.), +d Gvovacripuov 76 
(6v) arévavre kupiov (Lev. xvi. 12, 18); and, where the altar intended is clear 
from the context, merely 70 Svovaorjpiov (Lev. xvi. 20, al.), are regularly 
employed, and only in unimportant mss. of the same Juucatipwv presents 
itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the 
LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage 
of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, 76 Juucatfpiov Was 
quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense.’ Of the altar of 
incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage. 
For the manner in which the ypvooiv SuucarApiov is mentioned, as a paral- 
lel member to trav KeBwrdov tHe diadAKnc, Shows that the former must be an 
object of equally great importance as the latter. But, since that is so, 
something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only 
the altar of incense, which formed an essential constituent part of the 
tabernacle. Besides, there is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Lev. 
xvi. 12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the 


1Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. 
511 sq. (with Mangey, I. p.504): tpr@y ovtwr ev 
Tols aylo.s okevav, AvxVLas, TpaTEgyns, OuucaTy- 
ptov; De vita Mos. p. 668 (II. p. 149): “Awa Sé 
TOUTM edNMLOUPYELTO Kal GKEUN iepa, KLiBwTOs, 
Auxvia, Tpamega, Ouucatyprov, Bwuds. ‘O pev 
ovv Bwuos iSputo ev vraiOpw x.7.A.; Josephus, 


de Bello Jud.v. 5.5: Kai 7o wév mpa@Tov MéEpos 

. €lxevy €v avT@ Tpia Oavwagwrata Kat 
mepiBonta mac avOpwrots Epya, AUXVLay, TpaTre- 
Gav, Ovuratypiov; Antig. iii. 6. 8: metagu Se 
avtis (THs Avxvias) Kal THS TpamEgns Evdov ... 
Ovpratyprov, EvAwvov méev «.7.A, al. 


604 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a 
censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has 
mainly before his mind, nothing is known with certainty. Only from the 
Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4,1 do we learn something about it. Moreover, 
according to tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the 
storehouse, carried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon 
the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom ; even as it 
would be a priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument 
should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Lev, xvi. 12, 
13, the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy 
Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned 
above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to 
him, to the end that he died not. And yet éyovoa compels us to think 
of an abiding place of the Suuarjpiv ; to explain éyouca of the mere apper- 
taining of the Guuwarypiov to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for 
the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors,? is—inasmuch as 
the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two 
main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to 
each of these divisions, by means of pera dé, ver 38, and thus éyovoa, ver. 4, 
unmistakably corresponds to the év 7, ver. 2—altogether arbitrary. If, 
then, we understand @ucargprov of the altar of incense, as we are compelled 
to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its stand- 
ing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here presupposed by the 
author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 1 ff.). This point 
of inconsistency with historic truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the 
conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicin- 
ity of the Jewish safactuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to 
the same only from the Scriptures of the O. T., whence the possibility of 
an error is explicable. In favor of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the 
following considerations : first, that Ex. xxvi. 35 there are mentioned as 
standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, butnot 
the altar of incense also. Then, that where the’ standing place of this 
altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by 
reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction. Finally, that in 
the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance 
in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it 
was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which 
the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 10; Lev. 
xvi. 18 f.).—ypvoovv] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The arti- 
cle, however, is wanting, because the sense is: a golden altar, namely, the 


10mnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus 
de altari accepit in turibulo argenteo 
vero die in aureo. ; 


to VITO-IW MIND, 1 Kings vi. 22. 
3So Ex. xxx. 6: Kat Oyoers alto amévavte 
TOU KATATETATLATOS, TOU OYTOS Em THS KLBWTOU 


rien eathole 


2 But also by some advocates of the opposite 
view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piseator, Owen, Myn- 
ster, Ebrard, Delitasch, Conybeare, Riehm, 
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 490, Obs.; Maier, 
Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal 


Tov paptupiwv; ibid. xl. 5: Kat Onoers To Ovar- 
aoTypiov TO xpvaour eis TO Oumtav evavTiov THS 
KiBwrod; ver. 26: amévavTt TOU KaTaTEeTAgMa- 
tos; Ley. iv. 7, Xvi. 12,18: ¢vavtiov or amévavte 
Kuplov. 


CHAP. IX. 5. 605 


atar of incense, in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court, 
namely, the altar of burnt-offering.—xai rv Ki Bwrdv rH Suabjxnc] and the ark 
of the covenant; comp. Ex. xxy. 10ff., xxxvii. 1-9.—repixexadvupévyy ravro- 
dev ypvoiv] overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Ex. xxv. 11) 
with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1 Kings viii., the ark of the 
covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruc- 
tion of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple 
was without an ark.'—év 7 ordyvoc ypvoy éyovoa 7d wavva k.t.2.] wherein was a 
golden pot with the manna, and Aaron’s rod which had budded, and the 
tables of the covenant. év 4 does not refer back to oxyvj, ver. 8 (Ribera, 
Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others),—for to the év 7, ver. 4, the izepdave 
dé ait#c, ver. 5, forms an opposition,—but it refers to «:Bwrdc. On the 
pot of manna, comp. Ex. xvi. 32-34; on Aaron’s rod, Num. xvii. 16-26 
(1-11); on the tables of the covenant, Ex. xxv. 16; Deut. x.1,2. Accord- 
ing to 1 Kings vii. 9, there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant, 
at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law; 
and according to Ex. xvi. 83, Num. xvii. 25 (10), the two first-mentioned 
objects were not to have their place within, but before the ark of the cove- 
nant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to 
the place of the preservation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is 
found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1 Kings 
vii. 9 and at Num. xvii. 10, and Abarbanel at 1 Kings viii. 9. See Wet- 
stein on our passage. 

Ver. 5. The author turns from the objects to be found within the ark of 
the covenant to that which is above the same—izepdvw 8 airic| se. Tic 
KiBwrov.—XepovBiu| comp. Ex, xxv. 18 ff., xxxvii. 7 ff.; Winer, Bibl. Real- 
worterb. I. 2 Aufl. p. 262 ff.; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. I. p. 311 
ff. There existed two of them, of fine gold, one at each end of the cover 
or lid of the ark of the covenant, upon which, with faces turned towards 
each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their out- 
spread wings. In the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God en- 
throned (1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 Kings xix. 15; Isa. xxxvii. 16), and 
from this place God would speak to Moses (Ex. xxv. 22; comp. Num. vii. 
89).—Xepovfiu is here treated as a neuter, as likewise generally with the . 
LXX., with whom the masculine oi Xepov3. occurs but rarely (e.g. Ex. xxv. 
20, xxxvii. 7). The neuter is not, however, to be explained by the suppo- 
sition that tvebvara is to be supplied to it in thought (comp. Drusius on 
our passage), but from the fact that the cherubim were regarded as Coa. 
—The cherubim are called XepovBin déEnc. That may mean cherubim 
of glory or brightness, to whom glory or brightness is proper (so Camera- 
rius, Estius, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, Kuinoel, a/.), or the cheru- 
bim which pertain to the divine glory, the N17) 33, i.e. who are the bearers 


1Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. vy. 5. 5: Mosaic cherubim are described as goa metecva, 
"Execto S5€ ovdév GAws EV aiTa, popdyy & ovdevi tov Um’ avOpirwv Eewpapevwv 
aBatov 5€ kat axypaytov Kai adeatov qv macy, maparAyjo.a. Comp. also Ezek. x. 15: kat ta 
aylov S€ ayvov exadecTo. XepovBiu Hoav TovTo Td Gwov, 6 idov x.7.A. Ibid. 


2Comp. Josephus, Antig. iii. 6. 5, where the ver. 20. 


606 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


of the divine glory (so the majority). Grammatically the former is easier 
(on account of the absence of the article before dégyc). But the latter is 
to be preferred as yielding a more appropriate thought, and the omission 
of the article is to be justified from the usage of the LXX. Ex. xl. 34; 1 
Sam. iv. 22; Ezek. ix. 8, x. 18, al.—karaoxidfovra 7d idaoripiov] which over- 
shadow the propitiatory (or mercy-seat). katackidfecv in the N. T. only 
here. Comp. ovoxidlew, Ex. xxv. 20; oxeafew, Ex. xxxvii. 9; 1 Chron. 
xxvill. 18. A more choice verb than repixadinrew, 1 Kings vill. 7. 16 iAa- 
ot#pcov (132), the cover of the ark of the covenant, which on the 
great day of atonement was sprinkled with the sacrificial blood for the 
expiation of the sins of the people. Comp. Ley. xvi. 14 f.—zepi év] goes 
back not merely to the cherubim (Ebrard, p. 294), but also to all the objects 
before enumerated.—oix éorw] it concerns us not, or: is not the place, or: is 
impossible. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 20. Of the same meaning as the more defi- 
nite ov« &eorw. With Kurtz to supply réroc is inadmissible-—xard pépoc] 
in detail. The author does not design to set forth the typical significance 
of every single object enumerated ; the indication of the typical signifi- 
cance of the two main divisions of the Jewish sanctuary is that which he 
at present aims at, and to this task he now addresses himself in that 
which immediately follows, comp. ver. 8. 

Vy. 6,7. After the collective expression ro dyvov koouckdv, ver. 1, has 
been analyzed into its single constituent parts, vv. 2-5, and a recapitula- 
tory reference has been made to the total result of this given analysis by 
means Of rottov ob toc KaTteckevacwévwr,—the opposition to wév, ver. 
1, being formally introduced by dé, and then receiving its more precise 
material defining by means of the statement, ver. 8, which is attached in 
a grammatical respe@t as a subsidiary clause,—the discourse advances to 
the development of the further general idea, which is placed in the fore- 
front, ver. 1, but has hitherto remained unnoticed, the twofold expression 
dikat@mata Aatpeiac.—F rom the present ceiciacirv, as from mpoodgéper, 
ver. 7 (comp. also ver 8 f.), it follows that the Mosaic cultus was still con- 
tinuing at the time when the author wrote. The participle perfect, xateo- 
kevaouévov, however, denotes that-which is extending out of the past into 
the present, and is still enduring in the present (see Winer, p. 254 [E. T. 
270 f.]). The present hereby indicated can, of course, only be that in 
which the author himself is living and writing. The endeavor to explain 
it of a present into which the author only mentally places himself, is as 
little warranted grammatically as is the asserting, with Hofmann, that the 
present in which the discourse here moves is “not a past, nor actual, nor 
something still continuing, but that set forth in the word of God, where 
it is to be read how the sanctuary erected by Moses was constituted, and 
what priests and high priests do in the same; ” or with Mangold (in Bleek’s 
Hinleit. in das N. T. p. 617), to find the Scripture picture of the tabernacle 
drawn in our passage as a “ purely ideal magnitude, which by no means 
guarantees the actual continued existence of the temple worship.” For, 
in order to render possible suppositions of this kind, the conjoining of the 
presents with a participle aorist would have been indispensably necessary. 


CHAP, EX? 65°75 607 


From the form of discourse chosen: tobtwr ottw¢g kateckevacpévar 
(“in that these objects have been in such wise regulated’), in union with 
the present tenses eiciacvv and zpoodgé per, it therefore follows of neces- 
sity that tho author, although here entering only upon the presentation of 
the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, 
nevertheless thinks of these two main divisions, together with all that 
appertains to them,—which he has just now enumerated,—as still pre- 
served in being, thus also as still present in the Jewish temple of his day ; 
by which supposition, it is true, he becomes involved in contradiction with 
the historic reality, inasmuch as alike the ark of the covenant as the ves- 
sel of manna and Aaron’s rod were wanting in the second temple. Vid. 
supra ad ver. 4. With very little reflection does Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
Hebrierbr. p. 491, Obs.) object to this conclusion, that “ with just the same 
right one might infer from the present in xiii. 11 that the author supposed , 
the Israelites of his time to be still dwelling in a camp.” The passage 
xiii. 11 has nothing whatever in common with ours, since it is here a ques- 
tion of the combination of a participle perfect with verbs in the present. 
That, too, which Delitzsch sets against it, that the robrwv oitw¢ KatecKevac- 
pévov, pointing back to KatecxevdoOy, ver. 2, certainly shows that the author 
has the Mosaic period before his mind, utterly collapses, inasmuch as the 
participle perfect, and not the participle aorist, has been employed. Phrases, 
however, like those met with in Delitzsch : that the author was writing for 
just such readers as would not have given him credit for an ignorance 
like this, are peremptory decisions, for which the result is already fixed 
before the investigation, and consequently intimidations of the grammati- 
cal conscience.—7 zpérn oxnvf] as ver. 2, the fore-tent or Holy Place.—é.a 
ravréc| continually, i.e. day by day. Opposite drag tov éavrov, ver. 7.— 
oi lepeic] Opposite pdvoc 6 apyeepebe, Ver. 7.—Tac Aarpeiac éritedovvtec] perform- 
ing the religious actions. Daily, morning and evening, an offering of in 
cense was presented, and daily were the lamps of the sacred candlestick 
placed in readiness and kindled. Comp. Ex. xxx. 7 ft 

Ver. 7. ‘Il devrépa] se. oxmvy, the Most Holy Place.—aza§ rov éviavTov } 
once in the year, i.e. only on a single day of the year, namely, on the tenth 
of the seventh month (Tisri), on the great solemnity of atonement. The 
supposition that the high priest on this day more than once entered the 
Most Holy Place is not excluded by the expression, and the disputed 
question as toshow many times this took place has no bearing on our 
passage. That the high priest was obliged to enter the Most Holy Place 
at least twice on this day, follows from Ley. xvi. 12-16. That he entered 
into it as many as four times is the teaching of the Talmud (tract. Joma, 
v. 1, vii. 4) and Rabbins.—wévoe 6 apyiepeie] se. elceot.— poopéper] 18 not to 
be explained, as by Caloy and others, of the sacrifices outside of the Most 
Holy Place. For in this case we should have to expect the aorist. It is 
employed of the blood of the victim before slain, which blood the high 
priest carries into the Most Holy Place, and here in the Most Holy Place 
presents to God (the Socinians, Grotius, Bleek).—irép éavrov Kai ro» ror 
Aaos dvvonuatwr] for himself and the transgressions of the people. To make 


GOS THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


éavrov likewise depend upon dayvonuatev (for his own sins and those of 
the peopie: Vulgate, Luther (?), Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Jac. Cap- 
pellus, Grotius, Storr, Stuart, Paulus, and others), is, although the thought 
is not thereby altered (comp. vii. 27), grammatically false ; because in that 
case the article 76v could not have been wanting before éavroi.—ayvoy- 
uitwr] see at v. 2, p. 

Ver. 8. Now follows rerio ently as a subordinate thought) the main con- 
sideration, with a view to which the author has been led more fully to 
describe the dyiov xoopixdy and the dicacduara Aarpeiac of ver. 1.—rovto dn2onv- 
Tog Tov mvetuatoc ayiov] the Holy Ghost indicating this very thing (follow- 
ing).—rovro] has the emphasis, and acquires its development of contents 
by means of pArw redavepioba . . . oraow—rov rvebuatoc dyiov] The 
arrangement of the sanctuary and priesthood prescribed by God to Moses 
is thought of by our author as carried into effect by Moses under the 
assistance and guidance of the Holy Ghost; the idea expressed in that 
arrangement might therefore very easily be represented as an indication 
designed by the Holy Ghost.—yjro regavepictar tiv TOv dyiwy éddv, Ett THe 
Tparne oxyvag éxovone oraow] that the way of the sanctuary is not yet manifested, 
so long as the fore-tabernacle still exists—rév dyiov] is erroneously appre- 
hended by the Peshito and Schulz cone also Zeger) as masculine. It is 
neuter. Does not, however, as ver. 2, denote the Holy Place, but, as vv. 12, 
24, 25, x. 19, xiii. 11 (comp. also 7d dyov, Lev. xvi. 16, 17, 20, al.), the Most 
Holy Place, and that not the earthly one (Kurtz),—for that would be a 
trifling statement; whereas surely roiro dydovvtoc tov mvetuatoc dyiov pre- 
pares the way for a deeper truth, vid. infra,—but the heavenly reality, the 
throne of the Godhead. —7 Tav.dyiwv 6d6c¢ signifies the way to the Most 
Holy Place. Oe otdéozv further means: to have existence, to exist. 
We have not, however, with Béhme, to import into it a secondary refer- 
ence to firmness or legal validity, and 4 mpétn oxnvyA isnot the one first 
in point of time, i.e. the earthly, Jewish sanctuary in opposition to the 
heavenly (Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Semler, Baumgarten, Bloom- 
field, al.), still less the tabernacle in opposition to the later temple (Peirce, 
Sykes), but the fore-tabernacle or Holy Place, in opposition to the interior 
tabernacle or Most Holy Place. The thought is: by the ordering that 
the Most Holy Place, the presence-chamber and place of manifestation of 
God, might not be entered, save on one single day of the year, and by the 
high priest alone, while the daily Levitical service of the priests is accom- 
plished in the Holy Place, and thus approach to the former debarred and 
shut off by the latter, the Holy Ghost proclaims that so long as the Leviti- 
cal priesthood, and consequently the Mosaic law in general,.continues, 
the immediate access to God is not yet permitted; that thus, in order to 
the bringing about and rendering possible of a full and direct communion 
with God, the Old Testament covenant-religion must first fall, and the 
more perfect one brought in by Christ (ver. 11) must take its place.’ 


1Comp. Matt. x. 5: eis od0v €@vOv; Jer. ii. | Obs. 4; Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 187]. 
18: tH 05 Aiymrov, al.; Kiihner, II. p. 176, 2Comp. Matt. xxvii. 51, as also Josephus, 


CHAP, TX; -S, 79; 608 


Vv. 9, 10 are closely, indeed, connected grammatically with that 
which precedes, but, logically regarded, introduce the third and last 
main point of the disquisition on the high-priestly superiority of Christ 
over the Levitical high priests. For after (1) it had been shown that 
Christ, as regards His person, is exalted above the Levitical high priests 
(iv. 14-vii. 28), and then afterwards (2) it was proved that likewise the 
sanctuary in which He ministers surpasses in sublimity the Levitical 
sanctuary (vill. 1-ix. 8), it is now further stated’ (3) that the sacrifice also 
which He has offered is more excellent than the Levitical sacrifices 
(ix. 9-x. 18). 

Ver. 9. [LXVII f, g.] "Hric] is not synonymous with 7. It is employed 
argumentatively, in that it presents the following declaration as a fact, 
the truth of which is manifest—We have not, however, to take rec with 
mapaory as a designation of the subject (Calvin, al.: which emblem was 
only for the present time; Storr, a/.: which emblem was to continue only 
to the present; Zeger, Semler, de Wette, al.: which emblem has refer- 
ence to the present time). For the verb to be supplemented would not 
be the mere copula; it would have a peculiar signification, and thus could 
not be omitted. #7~¢ alone is consequently the subject, and rapafo0a4 the 
predicate. Yet 7r¢ is not to be referred back to oraow (Chr. Fr. Schmid), 
for the expression ordow does not occupy a sufficiently independent posi- 
Sion in the preceding context to justify this; still less—what is thought 
possible by Cramer—to rv tév dyiwv édév, by which the idea would be 
rendered unmeaning. Nor have we to assume an attraction to rapaBoag, 
in such wise that gre should stand in the sense of 672 (so Bengel, who 
makes it point back to vv. 6-8; Maier, who makes it refer to vv. 7, 8; 
Michaelis, who makes it refer to pA redavepdoba x.7.2., and others), or, 
what amounts to the same thing, to supplement to the phrase #rci¢ 
tapaBoAy, comprehended together as a subject, tapaBoAW éorcv as a pre- 
dicate : which emblem (described vv. 6-8) is an emblem for the present 
time.’ For, in the course of vv. 9, 10, respect is had just to the closing 
words alone of ver. 8: éte tHe porn oxnvijg Exobonc otdow. The exclusively 
right construction, therefore, is the referring back of #rie to tie mpdrne 
oxnvyc, Ver. 8.—rapaBoAy ei¢ tov Kaipov Tov éveotyxéra] sc. éoTiv. TapaBoAR 
in the Gospels very frequently a fictitious historic likeness. Here a like- 
ness by means of a fact,an emblem. Not incorrectly, therefore, is it 
explained, on the part of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by 
rimoc.—eic] in reference to, as regards. Instead of ei¢ tov Kacpdv tov éveory- 
xéra, consequently, the mere tov Kapod tov éveotnxédtog might have been 
written.—é Kaipi¢ 6 éveatyxoc] the present time. The opposite thereto is 
formed by the karpd¢ diophdcewc, ver. 10, by which the reader is referred to 
the Christian epoch of time, the aidv pé2A0v (vi. 5; comp. also ii. 5). 6 
kacpoc¢ 6 éveotnkac is therefore synonymous with the aidv oitoc else- 
where, and indicates the pre-Christian period of time still extending 


Antiq. iii. 3.7: tv S€ tpitnv potpay [THs oxynv7js] 1So Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Mara, 
povw mepteypawe TS Oew Sia TO Kai TOV ovpa- p. 188 f. 
yov avemiBatov civat avOpwrots. 


39 


610 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


onward into the present.!. The term «avpéc, however, is chosen, instead 
of the more general ypévoc, or aiey, because it is the thought of the 
author that this period of time has already reached its turning-point, at 
which it is to take its departure.—xa? 7] conformably to which, or in ac- 
cordance with which, applies not to mapafory,? but to tij¢ mparne oxyvijc, as 
the last preceding main notion ; stands thus parallel to jru.—pi dvvayevac 
Kata ovveidjow Tedevaoar Tov AaTpevovta] is to be taken in close connection 
with dapd te kai Ouoiac tpoodépovrac (against Bohme, who unwarrantably 
presses the force of the plural dapa re kai Gvoiar)—xata ovveidyow] as 
regards the consciousness, or as to the conscience (Theophylact: kata tov éow 
arfpwrov), i.e. 80 that the reality of being led to perfection is inwardly 
experienced, and the conscience in connection therewith feels itself satis- 
fied.—rov Aarpebovta] him rendering the service (x. 2). Not specially the 
priest is meant (Estius, Gerhard; comp. also Drusius), but in general, the 
man doing homage to God by the offering of sacrifice, whether it be a priest 
who offers for himself, or another who presents this offering through the 
medium of the priest. [Matt. iv. 10; cf. 6 mpocepyduevoc, Heb. x. 1.] 

Ver. 10. Mévov émi Bpdu. Kai rou. kai dad. Bantiopmoig dixaidpata ocapkog 
x.7.A.] which, together with meats and drinks and divers washings, are only 
fleshly ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation. Apposition to dapa 
te Kai Ovoia, py Svvdpuevae x.T.A., Ver. 9.—pévov] belongs to dikaidyata capkéc, 
but is placed in advance of this on account of the addition éxi Bpopaow 
x.7.4.; and ixé expresses the accession to something already present 
(Winer, p. 8676 [E. T. 393]), or the existence externally side by side.A— 
Otherwise ‘is it explained by others, in that they take ~évov é7zi in close 
combination, give to éré the signification “in reference to,” and place 
both words still # relation to ver.9. They then regard pévoy ézi x.7.A. 
either as. nearer definition to spoodépovrac (so, substantially, Vatablus, 
Schlichting, and others), or as opposition to kara cvveidyow Tedeoa (80 
Schulz, Ebrard, al.). But against the first supposition the material ground 
is decisive, that the presentation of sacrifices in reality had reference by 
no means exclusively to the expiation of offences against the ordinances 
regulative of food and lustrations ; against the second, the linguistic ground 
that 4A” éxi Bpduacw pévov x.7.2. must have been written instead of pévov 
éxi Bpduaow x.7.A. Yet others take yévov éri x.7.A. in close conjunction 


deny this,—and the former will understand 
only an “imagined present,” into which the 
author “only transposed himself;” the latter, 
“that present in which the Holy Ghost pro- 
phesied by means of that which was written 


1Quite mistaken (as is already apparent 
even from the opposition to catpos StopAacews, 
ver. 10) is the opinion of Delitzsech, with whom 
Alford concurs, that 6 Katpos 0 éveotnKws 
denotes the present begun with the cacv7 


5.a07«7n, the present of the New Testament 
time, in which the parable has attained its 
close. See, on the contrary, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrderbr. ‘p. 494, Obs., and specially 
Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 748q.—That, for 
the rest, by 6 Kaupos 0 évertnxws only that 
present in which the author lived and wrote 
can be meant, needs not another ‘word of 
explanation. When Kurtz and Hofmann 


in the law,’—this is done only in the interest 
of their wrong interpretations of ver. 6. 

2O0ecumenius, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
Nickel, U.c., Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. 
p. 495, Obs.; Alford, Woerner, al. 

3Comp. e.g. Hom. Od. vii. 120: éyxvn én" 
éyxvn ynpaoker, wHAov 8 eri wyAw; Thucyd 
li. 101: bdaroaxduevos adeApny éavTov Swoes 
Kat xpymata én’ avry. 


~*~ 


CHAP) Ix. 1051 611 


with rdv Aarpetovra, ver. 9. So perhaps already the Vulgate (perfectum 
facere servientem solummodo in cibis), then Luther (“him that does 
religious service only in meats and drink,” etc.), Estius, Corn. a Lapide, 
Olearius, Semler, Ernesti, Ewald, Hofmann, and others. But the addi- 
tional words would too greatly drag, the thought resulting would be 
incommensurable with kara ovveidyow tedeoa, and the formula Aarpebew 
éxé te in the sense indicated without example—The PBpépara kai 
xéuata are interpreted by Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Heinrichs, 
Maier, and others of the sacrificial meals ; by Bleek and de Wette, of the 
partaking of the paschal supper in particular. But the mention of these 
practices would be, here at any rate, something too special, and the words 
xiii. 9 can furnish no standard for the interpretation of our passage. 
More correctly, therefore, is it thought in general of the meats and drinks 
permitted, as of those forbidden, in the Mosaic law. Comp. Col. ii. 16; 
Rom. xiv. 17. With regard to drinks, there are in the Mosaic law pro- 
hibitions only for special cases; comp. Num. vi. 3; Lev. x. 9, xi. 34. 
Comp. however, also Matt. xxiii. 24; Rom. xiv. 21.—xai dvagdpore Bartiopoic] 
Comp. Ex. xxix. 4; Lev. xi. 25, 28, 32, 40, xiv. 6-9, xv. 5 ff., xvi. 4, 24 ff.; 
Num. vil. 7, xix. 17 ff., al—diaiéuata capkéc] ordinances of the flesh, 
i.e. ordinances that relate to the flesh, and thus bear the impress of the 
earthly and transitory.—yéype Karpov diopbdcewce érkeiueva] imposed (only) 
until the time of reformation. The xarpd¢ diophdcewe is the epoch of the 
promised New and more excellent Covenant (viii. 8 ff.), which has begun 
with the appearing of Christ.—d:ép@woic] only here in the N. T.—éruxeiueva] 
Oecumenius: Bdpoc yap qv pévov ta év TO vduw, Kabdc gacw ob anécTodo. 
Comp. Acts xv. 10, 28. 

Vv. 11, 12. [LXVII h-k.] Antithesis to vv. 9,10. What the religion of 
the Mosaic covenant was unable to effect, that has been accomplished by Christ. 
—rapayevouevog apxieped’¢ Tov weAAdvTwov ayabov| having appeared as High 
Priest of the good things to come. The verb in the same sense as Matt. 
iii. 1, 1 Macc. iv. 46; synonymous with dvictac#a, Heb. vii. 11, 15. 
Strangely misapprehending the meaning, Ebrard: zapayevéuevoc is to be 
looked upon as an “ adjectival attribute” to apyepetc, and the thought is, 
“as a present High Priest,”’—an acceptation which is incompatible with 
the participle of the aorist—High Priest of the good things to come 
(comp. x. 1) is Christ called, inasmuch as these good things are the conse- 
quence and result of His high-priestly activity. They are the blessings 
of everlasting salvation, which the author, ver. 12, sums up in the expres- 
sion aiwria Abtpworc; and they are called future, inasmuch as they are 
proper to the aiay péAAwv (vi. 5), or the oixovuévy péAAovea (ii. 5), and the 
full enjoyment of them will first come in at the consummation of the 
kingdom of God, to be looked for with the return of Christ.—déia rj¢ pueiZovoe 
kai tedevorépac oxnvac x.7.A.] through the greater and more perfect. taber- 
nacle, which is not made with hands—that is to say, not of this world. 
The words belong to eio7Afev cic ta ayia, Ver. 12, and dca is used in the 
local sense: “ through ” (not instrumentally, as the da, ver. 12). To join 
the words to that which precedes, and find in them an indication of that 


612 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


by means of which Christ became dapyepedie tov peaadvrov ayabav (Primasius, 
Luther, Dorscheus, Schulz, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, pp. 409, 412 f., 2 
Aufl..—which latter will accordingly also take the 6:4, ver. 12, in both 
cases along with apyiepete tov perddvtwv ayafov; otherwise, however, in 
the Comm. p. 3387,—Moll, and others), is erroneous, because by virtue of 
ovdé, ver. 12, the existence of an already preceding link in the nearer 
definition of cio7AGev cig ta Gya is presupposed.—But to interpret the 
oxyv4 through which Christ has entered into the Most Holy Place as the 
body of Christ, or His human nature, or as the holy life of Christ,? or as the 
(militant) church upon earth, or, finally, as the world in general,‘ is incon- 
sistent with the point of comparison suggested by the comparatives e/Covo¢ 
and reAevorépac in accordance with the foregoing disquisition, in general 
is opposed to the connection with vv. 1-10, and has against it the anti- 
thesis in which ra ayia, ver. 12, stands to oxy4, ver. 11, as.also the addi- 
tion ob rabtye tHe Kticew. The lower spaces of the heavens are intended 
—corresponding to the zpory oxjv4 of the earthly sanctuary (vv. 2, 6, 8)— 
as the preliminary stage of the heavenly Holy of Holies. Comp. iv. 14: 
SteAndvbéra Tove ovpavovc¢.—eilovoc Kai tedecorépac] sc. than the Mosaic oxyv9. 
—ov xetporogtov] Comp. Vili. 2: fv éxnzev 6 Kbptoc, ovk avOpwroc, Acts Vii. 
48, xvii. 24; Mark xiv. 58; 2 Cor. v. 1—ov ratrne ric kticewc|] not belonging 
to the earthly created world (the earth) lying before one’s eyes (rary). 
Wrongly Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, 
Bengel, Kuinoel, Friederich, /.c. p. 296, and others: not of this kind of 
building, sc. the same as the earthly sanctuary; or: as earthly things in 
general. 

Ver. 12. Oidé] nor. Oidé is written by the author, misled by the fore- 
going notes of negation : ov yelporomtov and ob rabty¢ THe KTicewc, Whereas, 
properly, cai od ought to have been written, since that which is intro- 
duced by. obdé is parallel, not to the negative expressions further charac- 
terizing thie oxyv7, but to the preceding di4.—dv aipatoc tpaywv Kat pooxor] 
by (by means of) blood of goats and calves, by which the entrance of the 
earthly high priests into the Most Holy Place was made possible on the 
great day of atonement. Comp. Lev. xvi. 14, 15.—é.a 6d? rod idiov aivaroc] 
the Levitical high priest entered the Most Holy Place not merely by 
means of the blood of animals, he entered at the same time with this 
blood (ver. 7). The author, however, has respect, with reference to the 
Levitical high priest also, only to the former notion, since only this, and 
not at the same time the latter, was suitable for application to Christ 
(Schlichting). If he had desired that the notion of the werd should also 
be supplied in thought in our passage (Kurtz), he would have known how 


150, on account of x. 20, Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, 
Clarius,-Calvin, Beza, Estius, Piseator, Jac. 
Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, Owen, Ben- 
gel, Peirce, Sykes, Ernesti, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
Friederich, Symbolik. des Mos. Stiftshiitte, 
Leipz. 1841, p. 296 ff., and others; also Hof- 
Bann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 415, 2 Aufi., who, 


however, will have us think of the glorified 
human nature of Christ. 

2 Ebrard. 

3Cajetan, Corn. a Lapide, Calov, Wittich, 
Braun, Wolf, Rambach, Michaelis, ad Pewra, 
Cramer, Baumgarten. 

4 Justinian, Carpsoy. 


CHAP, 1x. 12-14. 613 


to express likewise this “somewhat gross material conception ” (Bleek 
II.) —égdraz] once for all. Corresponds to the following aiwviav.—ei¢ ra 
ayia] into the inner sanctuary of heaven.—aiwviav rvtpwow etpauevoc] having 
obtained (by His sacrificial death) eternal redemption. Incorrectly do 
Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, and Moll take eipayevoc as something 
coinciding in point of time with ¢cio7A#ev. If it had been so intended, the 
participle present would have been placed instead of etpdpevoc.—e bp io- 
keoOac signifies: to find (for oneself), obtain. The Avtpwarce became 
Christ’s peculiar possession, thus—since He Himself, as the Sinless One, 
needed it not—to make it over to those who believe in Him.—This 
Abt pwore is the ransoming, é.e. redemption from the guilt and punish- 
ment of sin, and it is called aiwvia, eternal, or of indefeasible validity, in 
opposition to the sacrifices of the O. T. priests, which had to be renewed 
every year, since they were designed each for the [typical] expiation of 
the sins of a single year—The feminine formation aiwvia in the N. T. 
only here and 2 Thess. ii. 16. 

Vy. 18, 14. Justification of aiwriav Abtpworw ebpauevoc, ver. 12, by an argu- 
ment a minore ad majus. With the quantitative augmentation, however, 
expressed by «i... éow padov, there is at the same time blended a 
qualitative augmentation by means of xpdc tHv THe capKdc KadapétyTa and 
tiv ovveidnow wu. k.7.A., in such wise that the two following thoughts are 
enfolded the one in the other :—(1) Ifeven the blood of animals works 
cleansing . | . how much more the blood of Christ? (2) If that effects 
the purity of the flesh, this effects purity of conscience.—xai orédo¢ 
dapdrewc] and ashes of an heifer. According to Num. xix., those who by 
contact with a dead body had become defiled, must be sprinkled with a 
mixture of water and the ashes of a spotless red heifer wholly consumed 
by fire, of which the ashes were preserved in a clean place without the 
camp (with the so-called 137), Num. xix. 9, 13, 20, 21; LXX.: idup 
pavtiouov), in order to become clean again.—pavrifovoa Tove Kexorvwpuévoue | 
sprinkling those who have been defiled. Free mode of expression for: with 
which (ashes) those who have been defiled are sprinkled.—rov¢ kexowwnévore] 
belongs, since pavri{ovsa most requires an express addition of the object, 
to this verb,! not to dy:dfec,? which latter stands absolutely: works sanctifi- 
cation.—xpo¢ tiv tHe capkdc Kadapéryta] to the (producing of the) purity of 
the flesh. spéc, as v.14. Indication of the result. 

Ver. 143 Incomparably more efficacious must the sacrifice of Christ be. 
For—(1) Christ offered Himself, i.e. He gave up His own body to the death 
of a sacrifice, while the Levitical high priest derives his material of sacri- 
fice from a domain foreign to himself personally ; then: He offered Him- 
self from a free resolve of will, while the Levitical high priest is placed 
under the necessity of sacrificing, by the command of an external ordin- 
ance, and the sacrificial victim whose blood he offers is an irrational ani- 


1Erasmus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, 3A. L. van der Boon Mesch, Specimen Her- 
Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, meneuticum in locum ad Hebr. ix. 14, Lugd 
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, al. Bat. 1819, 8vo. 


2 Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Schulz, al. 


614 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


mal, which consequently knows nothing of the end to which it is applied. 
The Levitical act of sacrifice is then an external one wrought in accord- 
ance with ordinance, a sensuous one; Christ’s act of sacrifice, on the 
other hand, one arising out of the disposition of the heart, thus a moral 
one. From this it is already evident how it could be said (2) that Christ 
offered Himself dca mvetuatoc aiwviov. The ethical belongs to the prov- 
ince of the spirit. Christ accordingly offered Himself by virtue of spirit, 
because His act of sacrifice was, in relation to God, an act of the highest 
spiritual obedience (Phil. ii. 8), in relation to the human brethren an act 
of the highest spiritual love (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). Ava rveipatog aiwvion, 
however, by virtue of eternal spirit did Christ offer Himself, inasmuch as 
the notion of the eternal belongs inseparably and essentially to the notion 
of spirit, in opposition to capé, which has the notion of the transitory as 
its essential presupposition. The adjective aiwviov is added in natural 
correspondence with aiwviav Aizpwow, ver. 12. For only by virtue of 
eternal spirit could a redemption which is to be eternal, or of ever- 
enduring validity, be accomplished—The majority have interpreted 6:4 
mvevmatoc aiwviov of the Holy Spirit; then thinking either, as Clarius, 
Estius, Whitby, and others, of the third person in the divine trias, or as 
Bleek, de Wette, and others, of the Spirit of God which dwelt in Christ in 
all its fullness, and was the principle which animated Ilim at every 
moment. But this application is too special. For, in accordance with 
the force of the words and the connection of the thoughts, there can stand 
as a tacit antithesis to the expression: did mvetuato¢g aiwviov, only the gen- 
eral formula: d:d capkd¢ mpockaipov, whereby the mode of accomplishing 
the Levitical acts gf sacrifice would be characterized. . Moreover, if the 
Holy Spirit had been intended, the choice of the adjective aiwriov instead 
of dyiov ‘must have appeared strange, because indistinct and liable 
to being misunderstood; finally,-the absence of the article also is 
best explained on the supposition that the formula is to be understood 
generically. Too special, likewise, is the explanation of the words adopted 
by Aretius, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Gomarus, Calov, Wolf, Peirce, M’Lean, 
Bisping, and many others, in part coinciding with the second form of the 
first main interpretation, according to which, by mvetyua aidvov, the divine 
nature of Christ, or “the principle of the eternal Sonship of God indwelling 
in Christ” (Kurtz), is designated. This view already finds its refutation 
in the fact that zveiva has its opposite in odpf, and rvedua and odpf are 
contrasted as spirit and body, not as divine and human. To be rejected 
farther is the procedure of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Lim- 
borch, Carpzoy, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 525 ff.), Reuss, Kurtz, 
Woerner, and others, in making the zvevua aidvov, as regards the thing ' 
intended, equivalent to the divayuc Cue axaradbrov, vil. 16, whereby the 
essentially ethical import of the expression in our passage is lost sight of; 


1“Tauteur a voulu dire ici, par une tour- non sujette A la mort et par cela méme seule 
nure nouyelle, justement ce qu'il a déja dit capable de nous assurer un bienfait durable 
deux fois en d’autres termes (vii. 16,25). La et éternel aussi.” 
nature de Christ lui assure une vie éternelle, 


CHAP. Ix. 14, 615 


entirely false and arbitrary, however, is the interpretation of Déderlein 
Storr, and Stuart, who refer rveiya aidvov to Christ’s state of glorification 
after His exaltation ; of Nosselt (Opusc. ad interpret. sacr. scripturr. fascic. 
I. ed. 2, p. 334),—as also van der Boon Mesch, l.c. p. 100,—who espouse 
the opinion: “‘zveiua esse victimam, quam Christus se immolando Deo 
obtulit, eamque aiwriay dici propterea, quod istius victimae vis ad homines 
salvandos perpetua atque perennis futura sit;” of Michaelis, ad Peire., 
who finds the sense, that Christ presented Himself not according to the 
letter of the Mosaic law, but yet certainly according to its spirit; and of 
Planck (Commentatt. a Rosenm. etc., edd. I. 1, p. 189), who even maintains 
that the spirit of prophecy in the prophets of the Old Covenant is thought 
of. Strangely also Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, and others (comp. 
already Chrysostom) : dia mvebuato¢g aiwviov stands in opposition to the fire, 
by which the Levitical sacrifices were offered to God. Similarly Hofmann 
(Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 420, 2 Aufl.), who is followed by Delitzsch and Riehm 
(Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 527, Obs.): “the spirit by which Christ offered 
Himself is called an eternal spirit, in opposition to the fleeting spirit of the 
animals which the O. T. high priest presented.” Of a “spirit ” of the ani- 
mals the author (cf. iv. 12) can hardly have thought, inasmuch as, though 
in the O. T. a rvedua is often ascribed to animals, this is understood only 
in the lower sense of the wuy4. Needlessly, in the last place, does Reiske 
conjecture dyvetuaroc instead of rvebuatoc.—did] denotes not the mere 
impulse or impelling motive (Vatablus, Ribera, Estius, al.), nor yet the con- 
dition or sphere (Stengel, Tholuck, a/.), but the higher power, by virtue of 
which the offering was accomplished and made effective.—éavriv mpoofvey- 
xev] is understood by Bleek, with whom Kurtz concurs, after the prece- 
dent of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, and others, in 
the sense that Christ offered to God, in the heavenly Holy of Holies, His blood 
which was shed upon earth ; which, however, is violent on account of éa 
Tvebuatoc aiwviov, since these words appertain to the whole relative clause, 
and are not to be referred, with Bleek, as a nearer definition merely to 
duwuov. The undergoing upon earth of the death of the cross is that which 
is meant.—dpopnor] as a spotless sacrifice, yielding full satisfaction to God. 
The Levitical victim must be dyzeuoc (O°), physically free from blemish. 
Here duwuoc is used of the higher, ethical spotlessness, and has reference 
to the sinlessness of character manifested by Christ during His earthly 
life. Erroneously Bleek: the expression has respect to “the condition of 
Christ after death and the resurrection, in which, raised above even the 
infirmities to which as very man He was subject upon earth, He could in 
particular no more fall a victim to death.”—;6 66] is to be taken along 
with the whole relative clause, not merely with dueuov.—ard vexpdv Epyor] 
forth from dead (legal) works, so that we free ourselves from them as from 
something that is unfruitful and useless, rise above them. The notion of 
the vexpa épya here the same as at vi. 1. 

Vv. 15-28. [On Vv. 15-22, see Note LX VIII., pages 631, 632.] In order, 
however, that Christ might become the mediator of the New Covenant, it was 
matter of necessity that He should suffer death. This follows from the very 


616 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


notion of a dsad#xy, since the same is only ratified after the death of the 
diadéuevoc has been proved; as accordingly the first or O. T. dcadjxn was 
not inaugurated without blood. For the inauguration of the earthly 
sanctuary the blood of slain animals sufficed; for the consecration of the 
aeavenly sanctuary, on the other hand, there was need of a more excel- 
lent sacrifice. This Christ has presented once for all in the end of the 
world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death. [LX VIII a, b.] 

Ver. 15. Kai dia rovto diadjxng Kage pecitng éoriv] and just for this cause 
is He the Mediator of a New Covenant. [LX VIII ¢, d.] By means of «ai, ver. 
15 attaches itself closely to the preceding context, and 61a roiro points 
back to the main thought contained in vy. 9-14; just for this reason, that 
the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes that which the Levitical sacrifices are 
unable to accomplish; namely, that, presented by virtue of eternal spirit, 
brings in an eternal redemption, these, on the other hand, as ordinances 
of the flesh, are able to effect only purity of the flesh. Not specially to 7d 
aia, ver. 14 (Sykes, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Maier), does 6:a@ rovro glance back. 
For in this case 6c’ airé, or rather 6d tov aiparoc, would more naturally 
have been written. Nor is dca rovro to be taken together with orwc, as a 
mere preparation thereto (so Schlichting, Schulz, Bohme, Bleek, Stengel, 
Ebrard, and many). For thereby ver. 15 would be torn from its connection 
with that which precedes—Upon xacvq#e there does not rest an emphasis, 
as is supposed by Bleek and Delitzsch. For otherwise the adjectives must 
have been prefixed to the substantive. On the contrary, what is to be specially 
emphasized is dca0Axy¢. For just the inner nexus of the N. T. dca 8 4x7, 
with the redemptive death of Christ as its mediating cause, is to be brought 
out; whereas the adjective «amc could be presupposed as familiar from 
the disquisition viii. 8 ff, in that there the perfect covenant promised by 
God was sufficiently characterized as a new one.—ézwc] in order that. False 
the interpretation of Heinrichs: “unde sequitur.” The final clause ézw¢ 
«.7.2.-is not designed to develop more nearly the 6: rovro; it depends upon 
diadhKne Kaye peoitne éoriv, and indicates the goal to which, in accordance 
with the decree of God, the d:aSfxy kay should lead, and at the same 
time the way and means by which the attainment of this goal should be 
accomplished.—favarov yevouévov] a death having ensued. The death of 
Christ is that which is meant. The author, however, expresses himself 
generically, because he has already in mind that which is to be observed, 
vv. 16, 17.—Ei¢ drottitpwow tov éxi tH mpdty diadhKn TapaBdcewr] for re- 
demption from the transgressions (or sins) committed under the first covenant 
(or at the time of the first covenant). Note of design to @avdarov yevouévov, not 
to AdBwow.—riv éixayyeriav] the promise, i.e. the promised blessing itself. 
With rH érayyeAiav we have to combine t7¢ aiwviov KAnpovopmiag, as” 
a declaration wherein the promised blessing consists (genitive of apposition). 
By the separation of the two closely connected words, rv érayyediav is 
brought out more emphatically, and. the discourse gains in point of 
rhythm. Less suitably, although free from objection on linguistic 
grounds, did the Peshito, Faber Stapulensis, Braun, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
Stein, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm ‘(Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 594), 


Gn AP,’ 1x) 15;7%6: 617 


Moll, Ewald, and others take tie aiwviov KAnpovouiag with of KeKAnpuévor: 
those who are called to the eternal inheritance. —oi kxexAnuévor] Comp. 
KAgoews érovpaviov pétoyou, ill. 1. The expression is here used absolutely, 
and is not-to be referred exclusively to the Christians. For, according to 
ver. 26 and xi. 39, 40, the power of the redemptive death of Christ extends 
retroactively likewise to the generations of the past. And just for this 
reason the participle perfect is written, and not the participle aorist. For 
not to the historic act of the temporal vocation, but to the being called, as a 
fact in the decree of God already completed and extending into the pres- 
ent, is attention to be drawn. 

Vv. 16,17. [LX VIII e.] Demonstration of the necessity of the @dvarov 
yevéo¥ac by means of a truth of universal application. That Christ might 
be able to become the Mediator of a new d:adjxy, His death was required. 
For, to the validity of a dsadjx, it is essential that the death of the diavé- 
uevoc be first proved. Since immediately before (ver. 15) and imme- 
diately after (ver. 18 ff.) dvadjxy was employed in the sense of *‘ cove- 
nant,’ elsewhere usual in our epistle, we might naturally, on account 
of the conjunction of vv. 16, 17, by means of yap, with ver. 15, and 
on account of évev, by which again ver. 18 is joined to vy. 15, 16, expect 
this signification of the word to be found also in vy. 16, 17. This 
has accordingly been insisted upon, here too, by Codurcus (Crit. sacrr. 
t. VII. P. ii. p. 1067 sqq.), Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Whitby [in com.], 
Macknight, Michaelis, Sykes, Cramer, Paulus, and others, lastly also 
by Ebrard. But it is altogether inadmissible. For if we take dcadijxn 
as covenant, 6 dia¥éuevoc could only designate him who makes or insti- 
tutes the covenant; to take 6 dia%éuevoc as the mediator of the covenant, 
as is generally done in connection with that view, and to understand this 
again of the sacrificial victims, by the offering of which the covenant was 
sealed, is pure caprice. The thought, however, that for the validity of a 
covenant-act the death of the author of the covenant must first ensue, 
would be a perfectly irrational one. Irrational the more, inasmuch as, 
vy. 16, 17, only an entirely general truth is contained, passing for a norm 
in ordinary life. Ebrard finds expressed the thought: “ Where a sinful 
man wishes to enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must 
first die, must first atone for his guilt by death (or he must present a sub- 
stitutionary m7y).” But all these definings have been arbitrarily im- 
ported. For vv. 16,17 nothing is said either about a “sinful man,” or 
about a volition on his part, or about the “holy God,” or about an 
“atoning for guilt,” or about a “substitutionary no.” From what has 
been said, it follows that d:adfxy, vv. 16, 17, can be taken only in the 
sense, likewise very frequently occurring with the Greek authors, of 
“testament” or “ disposition by will.” It is true there arises therefrom a 
logical inaccuracy,! owing to the fact that dia jx is used in these two 


1For the author does not reason, as de ff.), in order to manifest the non-existence of 
Wette supposes, from the mere “analogy of a a logical inaccuracy, in that, namely, in the 
will or testament.”—The course, moreover, whole section, ver. 15 ff., he will have éca0nxq 
pursued by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 426 signify neither “ covenant” nor “testament,” 


618 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


verses in another sense than before, and the formal demonstrative force 
of that which is advanced by the author—although the underlying 
thoughts are in themselves perfectly just—is thereby sacrificed. It is, 
however, to be observed that while for us, since we are obliged to employ 
a twofold. expression for the reproducing of the diversity of sense, the 
transition from the one notion to the other appears abruptly made, this 
transition for the author, on the other hand, might be an imperceptible 
one, inasmuch asin the Greek one and the same word included within 
itself both significations. Thus, accordingly, it has happened that the 
ancient Greek interpreters explain diadjxq, vv. 16, 17, expressly in the 
sense of a testament or will, then at once pass over to the declaration con- 
tained in ver. 18, without so much as noticing the logical inaccuracy 
which presents itself. The sense consequently is: where a testament or 
deed of bequest exists, there it is necessary, in order to give it validity (comp. 
ioxier, ver. 17), that the death of the testator first be proved. The New Cove- 
nant, therefore, which Christ has established between God and man by 
His sacrificial death, the author here represents—in accordance with the 
figure of the «Aypovouia, ver. 15—as a testamentary disposition on the part 
of Christ, which, however, as such could only acquire validity, and put 
the heirs in possession of the blessings bequeathed to them, by means of 
the death of Christ—0@dvarov] emphatically preposed, while rot diade- 
évov, upon which no emphasis falls, comes in at the end of the clause.— 
gépecba| be declared or proved. Wrongly Grotius: the verb to be regarded 
as equivalent to exspectari (“ est enim exspectatio onus quoddam ”); Wit- 
tich : it denotes the being endured on the part of the relatives; Carpzov, 
Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Hofmann (Schrift- 
bew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 428), and others, that it denotes nothing more than 
ensue or yiveoda, ver. 15. 

Ver. 17. Confirmatory elucidation of ver. 16. The words of the verse 
are-connected together as-parts of a single statement. We have no right 
to break up the same, in such wise that dvabjxn yap émi vexpoic BeBaia is made 
a parenthesis, and érei «7.2. joined to ver. 16 (Hofmann).—ézi vexpoic] in 
the case of dead persons, t.e. only upon condition that the author of the dcabjxn 
is dead, or has died.—efaia] firm or inviolable (comp. ii. 2), inasmuch, 
namely, as, after the death of the testator has supervened, the abrogation 
or alteration of the testament on his part is no longer possible.—yjrore] 
never. [LXVIII f.] The making of pjrore equivalent to ure or nondum 
(Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Luther, Schlichting, B6hme) is 
linguistically inadmissible. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Lud. de Dieu, 


inaccuracy, in case it were present, an “inex- 
eusable confusion ” (!), in taking not only at 


but throughout the whole only “ disposal” 
(Verfiigung), is, as also Delitzsech and Riehm 


(Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 598, Obs.) acknowl- 
edge, an utter breakdown. See likewise the 
observations of Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 
1858, Marz, p. 194 f—Nor will it do, with 
Kurtz, to set aside the logical inaccuracy, at 
which he takes so great offence that he 
thinks himself obliged to designate such 


vy. 16, 17, but also in like manner at vv. 15, 
18, the éca@yx«y in the special sense of “ estab- 
lishing as heir.’ For the connection with 
that which precedes (comp. vii. 22, viii. 6 ff, 
ix. 1, 4) leads at vv. 15, 18 exclusively to the 
idea of a covenant, 


CHAP, Ix. 17-19. 619 


Heinsius, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Lachmann, Hofmann (Schriftbew. IT. 
1, 2 Aufl. p. 429), Delitasch, and Ewald regard the word as an interrogative 
particle, which does not alter the sense, and might appear the preferable 
course, since, on the supposition of an assertory statement, the objective 
obrore might have been expected in place of the subjective y#zore. Never- 
theless, elsewhere too, with later authors, the placing of the subjective 
negation is not at all rare after érei, when it introduces an objectively 
valid reason. See Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 480]; Buttmann, Gramm. des 
neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 304 LE. T. 353.].—ioyier] se. duabjxn, not 6 diabépevog 
(Peirce). 

Vv. 18-22. The first d:af/xy also was not inaugurated without blood, and 
without the shedding of blood there is no remission under the Mosaic law. 

Ver. 18. “OGev] [LX VIII g.] wherefore, sc. because, according to vv. 16, 
17, a dvabfxn becomes valid only through the intervention of death. To 
enclose vy. 16,-17 within a parenthesis, and refer back é#ev to ver. 15 
(Zachariae, Morus, Storr, Heinrichs, Conybeare, Bisping), is arbitrary.— 
ov6é] the augmenting ; not even.—? zpérn] the first, or Old Testament, se. 
dvajxn. Erroneously do Wetstein and Koppe (in Heinrichs) supplement 
oKyvh.—éykekaivioral] was inaugurated, i. e. introduced in a valid manner. 
The verb occurs in the N. T. only here and x. 20. 

Vv. 19, 20. Historic proof for the assertion, ver.18, with a free refer- 
ence to Ex. xxiv. 3-8.—«ard rdv véuor] is taken vy Schlichting, Calov, Jac. 
Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Storr, Bhme, Bleek, Bisping, a/., along 
With méone évrodge : “every precept according to the law, é.e. as it was con- 
tained in the law.” So already the Vulgate: lecto enim omni mandato 
legis. But against this construction the absence of the connecting article 
and the strangeness of the preposition «a74. Rightly, therefore, have 
Oecumenius, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, 
Wittich, Braun, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, 
Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and others referred kata 7dv véuov to Aadnfeionc. 
Only we must not explain, as is ordinarily done, “in accordance with the 
commandment received of God,” but the sense is: after, in accordance 
with the law received of God, every precept had been proclaimed by 
Moses to the whole people. The standard for the proclamation of the 
évrodai was the véuoc, since it contained these évrodai.—rarti ro Aa@] Ex. 
xxiv.3 stands only duyjoato r6 Aa@. But zavri resulted from the azexpin 
8 mac 6 dade there immediately following—xai tov tpdywv] and of the 
goats. Of goats slain in sacrifice the underlying narrative of Exodus says 
nothing. Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bohme, and others 
therefore suppose that the author had in view the burnt-offerings men- 
tioned before the thank-offerings of oxen, Ex. xxiv. 5; inasmuch as, 
according to Lev. i. 10 ff., iv. 28 ff.,ix. 2,3, Num. vi. 10, 11, vii. 27, rams 
and he-goats, as well as other smaller animals, might be selected for burnt- 
offerings. Nevertheless, it is also possible that, as conjectured by Bleek, 
de Wette, and Bisping, there was present to the mind of the author that 
sacrifice of bullocks and goats already referred to, vv. 12, 18, which the 
high priest was to offer on the great day of atonement.—yera idarog Kal 


620 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


éolov Koxkwvov Kat boodrov] along with water and crimson wool and hyssop. With 
regard to this also, nothing is stated in the corresponding passage of Exo- 
dus. . But all three things are elsewhere mentioned in connection with 
legally enjoined aspersions for purification. Comp. Num. xix. 6,17 f.; 
Ley. xiv. 2 ff., 49 ff In accordance therewith, a mixture of fresh spring 
water in some cases with the ashes of the red heifer, in others with the 
blood of a slain bird, was prescribed in the case of aspersions which were 
appointed for the cleansing of one defiled by contact with a corpse or by 
leprosy. In like manner, according to the passages above referred to, 
hyssop (28, comp. on this plant, Winer, Bibl. Realworterb. Bd. II. 2 Aufl. 
p. 819 f.) and crimson wool. With the latter the hyssop stem was probably 
bound round, and this served as a brush for sprinkling the blood. Comp. 
this use of hyssop in Ex. xii. 22.—airé re 7d BiBdiov Kai ravta Tov adv épdv- 
ticev] he sprinkled as well the book itself as also the whole people. 76 Bu8diov is 
the BiBriov rij¢ dabhxnc, Ex, xxiv. 7. Of a sprinkling likewise of this book 
of the covenant, nothing, however, is told us in Exodus. It has therefore 
been proposed, by way of removing the difference, to make 70 (Bator still 
dependent upon the preceding 2af6v.! But the «até following (:3Aiov ren- 
ders this impossible. For the setting aside of this kai by pronouncing it 
spurious (Colomesius, Valckenaer), or by the assumption of a pleonasm 
(so ordinarily), is an act of violence ; while we are prevented from placing 
it, with Bengel and Ewald, in correspondence with the xa/, ver. 21, as “et 
... et vero,’ or “non modo... vero etiam,’—apart from the clumsi- 
ness of construction thus arising, and leaving out of consideration the 
inconvenient d¢,—by the twice occurring of the verb épavticev, vv. 19 and 21. 
—ravra tov Aabv] XX. ver. 8: AaBov dé Moioje 76 aiua-kateoxédace Tov Aaov. 
—ipavticev] sc. for consecration and purification. 

Ver. 20. Ex. xxiv. 8, LXX.: xai elrev' idod rd alua rhe diabhKne, He duébeTo 
Kbploc rpoc buac mTEpt TavTav TOV Adywv TobTwY.—He éveteiAato mpodc buac 6 Bedc] 
Bengel: “ praecepit mihi; ut perferrem ad vos.” 

Ver. 21 adds to that mentioned vy. 19, 20, not a simultaneous fact, but 
only something occurring later. For when the law was proclaimed by 
Moses, and the people promised to observe the same, the tabernacle had 
noi yet an existence. Ex. xl., where we have the account of the erection 
and inauguration of the tabernacle, only an anointing of the tabernacle 
and its vessels with oil is enjoined, not a sprinkling thereof with blood. 
Comp. ibid. ver. 9. Similarly in Leviticus, a sprinkling indeed with blood 
(viii. 15, 19, 24) is supposed in regard to the altar; in regard to the taber- 
nacle and its furniture, on the other hand, only an anointing (viii. 10 ff). It 
is possible, however, that Jewish tradition preserved more precise details. 
At least mention is made by Josephus also (Antiq. ili. 8. 6) of an aspersion 
of the tabernacle and its furnittire, on the part of Moses, with blood.— 


1So, after the precedent of the Coptie and conspersisse dicitur, quia qui ex proxime 


Armenian versions, Grotius, Wittich, Suren- astantibus conspersi fuerant, universi populi 
hus, Cramer, Bengel,-Michaelis, Storr, Morus, personam hae in parte gesscre, ita ut totus 
Ewald, and others. populus conspersus fuisse censeretur, 


3Schlichting: Omnem autem populum 


CHAP. ‘Lx 20=23° 621 


Erroneously, for the rest (on account of the aorist), do Owen, Seb. Schmidt, 
Wittich, Cramer, and others find mentioned, ver. 21, in place of the one 
act of Moses, a sprinkling enjoined by the law of Moses, and occurring at 
different fixed periods, in connection with which the majority will have 
the sprinkling which is made on the great Day of Atonement, Ley. xvi. 
14 ff., to be meant.—xai . . . dé] but also. Luke ii. 85; John viii. 16, al.— 
Ta oKein 7H¢ Aecrovpyiac] the vessels designed for sacred use. 

Ver. 22. Confirmation of the special historic facts adduced vy. 19-21, by 
the general rule, which throughout the whole domain of Mosaic law was 
recognized as, with hardly any exception, of binding obligation.—cyedov] 
almost, nearly (Acts xiii. 44, xix. 26), does not belong to év aiuarc (Bengel, 
Bohme). Still less is it to be joined to xadapifera, as is done by Chrysos- 
tom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Primasius, who, in opposition to the 
cohesion with that which precedes and follows, will find the thought 
expressed that the purification accomplished in accordance with the law 
is only a partial, bodily one, and thus only imperfect, since it is not able 
to cancel sins. It belongs logically to tadvra. The author, however, does 
not write Kat év aivate oyeddv ravta Kabapifera, but, on the contrary, pre- 
fixes oyeddv to the whole clause, in order to imply that the limitation 
contained in this expression extends to both members of the clause. The 
sense is consequeatly: and one must almost say that all things are 
according to the law purified with blood, and that without the shedding 
of blood no remission takes place! As concerns the thought, Grotius in 
his day aptly refers us to the saying of the Talmud (tract. Joma, fol. 5.1; 
Menachoth, fol. 98. 2): D073 wx 793 8, non est expiatio nisi per sangui- 
nem. The conceding, moreover, of the existence of single exceptions, by 
virtue of oyeddv, finds its justification, as regards the first half of the 
clause, in Ex. xix. 10; Lev. xv. 5 ff, 27, xvi. 26, 28, xx11.6; Num. xxx. 
22-94; as regards the second half, in Lev. vy. 11-13.—zdvra] all universally 
(men as well as things), which as Levitically impure has need of cleansing. 
Wrongly Peirce and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 563): all the 
furniture and utensils of the sanctuary.—«ara rdv véuov] in conformity with 
the law, i.e.80 soon as the norm fixed by the Mosaic law is taken into 
account. The addition «ara rdv véuov is likewise to be supplied in 
thought to the second member of the clause.—aivatexyvoia] a word not 
elsewhere met with in Greek literature. What is meant is not specially 
the pouring out of the blood upon the altar,’ but in general, the blood-shedding 
by the slaying of sacrificial animals.*—dgeouw] remission, sc. of the guilt 
incurred. 

Vv. 23-28. [On Vy. 23-28, see Note LXIX., pages 632-634.] If the 
earthly sanctuary needed to be cleansed and consecrated by such things 
as these, there was required of necessity for the dedication of the 
heavenly sanctuary a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented 


1So, rightly, Bleek, Winer, p. 514 f. [E. T. Aufl. p. 435, al. 
554]; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 500; 3 Bleek, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, Hofmann, 
Alford, Maier, Hofmann, and Woerner. Comm, p. 363. 

2De Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 


622 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

in the end of the world by means of His sin-cancelling sacrificial death ; 
and at His return, which is now to be expected for the salvation of those 
that hope in Him, no repetition of His sacrifice will be required. 

Ver. 23. [LXIX a, b.] The first of the two statements dependent on 
avayxn obv (ra pév . ... Kabapifecba) is deduced as a necessary conse- 
quence from vy. 18-22, while then the second statement (aira dé x.7.A.) is 
derived as a necessary postulate from the first, and in such manner a 
return is effected to the necessity for the death of Christ, already shown 
at vv. 16, 17, in order to set forth the same on a fresh side. The necessity 
of the first-mentioned fact of ver. 23 is evident from the norm instanced, 
which is of validity in the domain of the Mosaic law; the necessity of 
that last mentioned, from the difference between the Christian and the 
Judaic. The main thought, however, lies in the second half of the clause, 
to which the first forms logically only the bridge—oiv] se. because blood 
is so necessary a means for expiation and consecration.—davdyky oir] it is 
then needful. To avaycn oiv we have to supplement éoriv, not, with Faber 
Stapulensis, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Kurtz, and others, 
jv. For although the author has only one special fact in mind in connec- 
tion with both members of the sentence, yet, as is shown by the plural 
Guoiaic, he expresses himself universally ; because he is reasoning from the 
inner necessity, as this is presupposed by the state of the matter itself— 
Ta wév brodeiywata tov év Toig ovpavoig TovToe KabapiLerSar, avTa. dé K.T.A.] 
[On some words in Vv. 28 ff., see LXIX g.] that the copy, indeed, of that 
which is in heaven should be purified with these, but the heavenly place itself 
with better sacrifices then these, i.e. for the characteristically Judaic the 
means of expiation and consecration are necessarily determined in 
accordance with fhe norm specified in the Mosaic law; but since Judaic 
and Christian are distinguished from each other as the mere copy of the 
heavenly place and the heavenly place itself, so of necessity must the 
means of expiation and consecration in the Christian domain be a more 
excellent one than in the Judaic—By 74a év roi¢ obpavoic and ra 
étovpavia we have to understand neither the heavenly possessions,! nor 
yet the Christian Church and its members.? Still less can these expres- 
sions denote : “that which, where God is essentially present, brings with 
it His relation to the Church, i. e. first, His dwelling with it,—namely, in 
that the glorified human nature of Christ is the dwelling for the whole 
fullness of the divine nature ; secondly, the human nature, in its consecra- 
tion to God, in which Christ presents and offers it up to the Father; and 
thirdly, the place where God’s wrath against human sin meets with expia- 
tory satisfaction, by which it is averted,—thus Christ, who, as the propitia- 
tion for our sins, stands between the Church and its God” (Hofmann; 
Schriftbew. TI. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 486 ff. [ecomp. also Owen]). Rather is the 
heavenly sanctuary specially meant thereby, as is evident from ver. 24. For 
in ver. 24 the meaning of 4 ya issupposed to be already known from ver. 23; 


1Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, and 2Zeger, Estius, Corn. a Lapide, Caloy 
others. Béhme, Stengel, al.; comp. also Tholuck. 


CHAP. 1X. 23: 623 
inasmuch, namely, as dyca is there almost accentless, while all the emphasis 
is laid upon the adjectives yecporoiyra, etc. In accordance with this, 
too, is determined the meaning of-ta brodeiyuara Tov év Toi¢ ovpavoic 
as the earthly sanctuary, inasmuch as it was the imperfect imitation or 
copy of the former, as accordingly already, at viii. 5, the Levitical sanctu- 
ary had been characterized as imédecyypa Kai cna tov éxovpaviov. The 
plural ra trodeiyuara is placed, just because the author has already 
before his mind, in ver. 23, the plural ra aya, ver. 24. Thus, then, the 
first clause of ver. 23 has respect to the special fact already brought forward 
at ver. 21, whereas the second clause receives its elucidation by means of 
the special fact of which mention is made at ver. 24.—robroie] by such 
things as these, i. e. by blood of slain animals, and similar means of purify- 
ing, which belong to the earthly sanctuary ; to which general rubric, also, 
the ashes of the red heifer mentioned at ver. 18, but not here coming under 
consideration, belong. With marvellous inversion of the sense, Paulus: “to 
be declared pure for these, i.e. the Israelites.” —xadapifecda:] is passive. 
Arbitrarily is it taken asa middle by Heinrichs, who will have jac supple- 
mented as object. Against this the tenor of the foregoing verse is in 
itself decisive. The notion of being purified is not, it is true, applicable to 
the second clause, aira dé ra éxovpdva «7.2. For the heavenly sanctuary 
is removed from contact with the sinful world; it has no need, therefore, 
of an expiation or purification. We are warranted, however, in supply- 
ing in thought, without any hesitation, from. kafapifeota, a kindred verb 
to the second member of the sentence, by the assuming of a zeugma. 
But since now, in accordance with that which precedes, the «afaifeoa is 
an idea which entirely subordinates itself to the idea of the éyxacvifew, ver. 
18, the former having only the design of the latter, we shall best extract 
from the notion of being purified, in the first clause, the notion of being 
consecrated to the service of God, for the second clause, understanding this 
consecration of the heavenly sanctuary of the opening up of the access 


1 Otherwise, indeed, do Delitzsch, Riehm 
(Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 542 ff.), Alford, 


pavia altogether, there was need of a taking 
away of the action of human sin upon it, and 


Moll, and Kurtz decide. According to De- 
litzsch, the meaning of the author is: “The 
supra-terrestrial Holy of Holies, i.e the un- 
created eternal heaven of God, although un- 
sullied light in itself, had need of a ca@apiceo- 
@a, in so far as the light of love towards 
mankind had there been, so to speak, out- 
glowed and eclipsed by the fire of wrath at 
that whick was sinful; and the heavenly 
tabernacle, i. e. the place of His glorious self- 
manifestation in love, a self-manifestation for 
men and angels, had need ofa xa@apigecOar, in 
so far as men had rendered this spot, from 
the beginning designed for them, too, inac- 
cessible on account of sin, and thus had first 
to be transformed into the accessible place 
ot manifestation of a God graciously disposed 
towards men. As well with regard to 7a ayra 
as with regard to thy oxnvyv, thus to 7a érov- 


a taking away of the divine reaction against 
sin, the wrath, or, what is the same thing, a 
changing of the same into love.” [Similarly 
also Whitby, M’Lean, and Stuart.]—Not less 
far-fetched and forced upon the context is 
that which Bleek, following the precedent 
of Akersloot, regardsas probable. According 
to this view, @o which Woerner assents, an 
objective xa@apigec@a of the heavenly sanc- 
tuary, after the analogy of the passages Luke 
x. 18, John xii. 31, Acts xii. 7-9, was thought 
of, “in accordance with which Satan with his 
angels is, after the death and exaltation of the 
Saviour, cast forth out of heayen, and thus 
deprived of all influence which he might ex- 
ert there as acenser of men in the presence 
of God, or for the destruction of the blessed- 
ness of the inhabitants of heaven.” 


624 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

to the same, effected through the blood of Christ (comp. x. 19, 20),— 
Kpeittoow Auoiacc] The plural is chosen, although the author is thinking 
exclusively of the death of Christ, on account of the universal form of 
discourse, ver. 23, as a plural of the category (de Wette). False the inter- 
pretation of Grotius and Stengel: in addition to the sacrificial death of 
Christ, the sufferings of believers, together with their prayers and works of love 
(xiii. 15, 16), are thought of; and in like manner Paulus: the sacrifices of 
Jesus and all Christians for the good which pertains to duty ; but false, also, 
the explanation of Beza: the fact is hinted at that the one sacrifice of Christ 
is instead of many.—On rapa with the comparative, see at i. 4. 

Ver. 24. [LXIX ¢.] Confirmatory justification of aita ra éxovpava, ver. 
23, by the proof that in reality the heavenly sanctuary is that consecrated 
by the sacrifice of Christ. Wrongly is it assumed by Delitzsch, that at 
ver. 24 the indispensable requirement of better sacrifices for the heavenly 
world is proved from the actual nature of the one rendered and presented 
to God. For the argument passes over to the character of Christ’s sacri- 
fice, as offered once for all, only at ver. 25.—ov yap ei¢ yewporoinra ayia 
eionAbev Xpiordc¢] for Christ entered not into a holy place (i.e. most holy place, 
see at ver. 8) made with hands (ver. 11).—ye:poroinra] as the main idea 
emphatically preposed.—avritura rév adnfivov] a copy of the true (viii. 2), 
real one. avritvra denotes neither the copy of a copy, as is supposed by 
Bleek, after the precedent of Michaelis, ad Peirc., Cramer, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
upon the presupposition that the author already thought of the rizoc, viii. 
5, as a mere copy of the original ; nor is it to be taken as equivalent to the 
simple rizoc, as is done by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus, 
Schlichting, Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, and others. What is meant is the 
corresponding imtge, i.e. the copy or imitation, formed after the propor- 
tions of the tizo¢c or pattern, which God had shown to Moses (comp. viii. 
5). The ‘expression, therefore, is of essentially the same import as 
brdderyua, Vill. 5, 1x. 23.—aA2’ sic abtov tov obpavéy] but into heaven itself, 
into the heavenly Holy of Holies, where the throne of God itself exists, 
in opposition to the earthly Most Holy Place, not to the heavenly fore- 
tabernacle, ver. 11.—viv éudavicbjva tH Tpoodrw Tov Heov brép judov] now to 
appear before the face of God on our behalf (as our advocate, and intent 
upon our salvation, comp. vii. 25).—viv] now, after He has obtained His 
abiding dwelling-place in heaven.—Before the face of God. In this 
respect, too, a pointing to the exaltedness of Christ, the heavenly high 
priest. For, according to Ex. xxxiii. 20, no man could continue to live 
who had seen the face*of God; on which account also the earthly high 
priest might not even enter the earthly Holy of Holies until this had first 
been filled with the smoke of the altar of incense, and in this way the 
typical presence of God there existing had been veiled from his glance. 
Comp. Ley. xvi. 12, 13. 

Vy. 25-28. Renewed (comp. vii. 27, 28, ix. 12) emphasizing of the mani- 
festation once for all (and thus the full sufficiency) of the sacrifice of 
Christ. [LXIX d.] 

Ver. 25. Ovdé] nor yet, sc. eianAbev eic Tov ovpavdv.—rpoogépew éavrdv] denote 


CHAP; “Ex. 24-96. 625 


not the presentation of Himself with His blood before God in the hea- 
venly Holy of Holies,! but the offering of Himself as a sacrifice upon 
earth. The sense is: Christ entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies, 
not that He might presently leave it again, in order afresh to offer Him- 
self as a sacrifice upon earth.—é apyepetc] the Levitical high priest—ra ayia] 
the earthly Hely of Holies—év aivate addorpip] with blood not his own-— 
adrorpiw] Opposition to éavrdv. 

Ver. 26. [LXIX e, f.] Proof of the necessity that Christ’s sacrifice should 
take place only once for all, from the non-reasonableness of the opposite. 
For if the sacrifice of Christ sufficed not once for all for the cancelling of 
sin, He must oftentimes in succession—because no generation of mankind, 
so long as the world has endured, has been free from sin—have undergone 
death since the beginning of the world. But now, seeing this is contrary 
to reason, the matter stands in reality quite otherwise. From this reason- 
ing it is evident that the author supposed an expiation of the sins of all 
the earlier generations of mankind too, by virtue of the sacrificial death of 
Christ. An erroneous statement of the connection of thought is given 
by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 441), Delitzsch, and Alford. See, on the 
other hand, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 552, Obs.—érei] since other- 
wise, alioquin. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 10, vii. 14, al.—édex abrdv roArdnec mabeiv] it 
were needful that He should often suffer—On édec without av, see Winer, 
p. 266 [E. T. 283].—zxaeiv specially of the suffering of death, as xiii. 12. 
—ard xataBorjc Kéouov] from the foundation or creation of the world onwards 
(comp. iv. 8), 7.e. here: so long as there are men in the world—vvi dé] as 
viii. 6, in the logical sense: but now. Opposition to éred x.7.2.—éri ovvre- 
Asia tov aidver] in the end of the ages, periods of time. Antithesis to éxd 
kataBoAne xéouov, and equivalent in signification to én’ éoydrov roy puepav 
toprav, 1. 1. Comp. also év rq ovvtedela rod alévoc, Matt. xiii. 40, 49.—el¢ 
abétnow duaptiacg dia THE Ovaiac abtov] for the canceling of sin by His sacrifice. 
These words belong together. The conjoining of dia rH¢ Avoiac aitov with 
tegavépwrat, which has been preferred by Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, 
Heinrichs, Schulz, Béhme, Tholuck, and others, is, in connection with 
the right determination of the sense of the verb (vid. infra), harsh and 
unnatural, and not at all justified by the alleged analogon: 6 é2@dv d¢ 
vdaroc Kai aivatoc, 1 John vy. 6. Tholuck’s objection, however, that aéza£ 

. . aidvev is antithetically opposed to the kar éavrév, ver. 25, and 
megavépwrar dia THe Ovoiac to the eicépyerar év aiuate aAAoTpiv, does not apply, 
inasmuch as the second clause of ver. 26 forms the antithesis to the first 
clause of that verse, but not to ver. 25; on which account also ére?. .. Kéouou 
is not, with Beza, Mill, Griesbach, Carpzov, Schulz, Bloomfield, and others, to 
be enclosed within a parenthesis.—No emphasis for the rest falls upon the per- 
sonal pronoun employed with @vsiac, in such wise that the sense would be: 
by the sacrifice of Himself? It means simply: by His sacrifice (Bleek, de 


1Boéhme, Bleek, Delitasch, Alford, Kurtz, lations, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Lim- 
and others; cemp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des boreh, Schulz, Heinrichs, Bohme, Stuart, 
Hebrderbr. p. 474. Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Conybeare, and 

2So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, in their trans- others. 


40 


626 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Wette), so that not airoi, but airoi is to be written. The contrast between 
His own blood and the blood of other victims was already sufficiently 
brought out afresh at ver. 25.—zedavépwra] He has been manifested, i. e. He 
has appeared or come forth before the sight of men upon earth. Comp. 
1 Pet. i..20; 1 John i..5, 8; also Col. ii.4; 1 John i. 28; 1. Pet. y. 4 
{1 Tim. iii. 16]. To explain the expression of the appearing before God, 
and to make it of like import with éugavobjva tO rpoodrw Tov Beov, ver. 
24 (Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, Schulz, al.), is forbidden alike by the absence 
of the, in that case indispensable, addition 76 6e6, as by the é« devrépou 
ogdjoera, ver. 28, corresponding as it does to the zegavépwrar. 

Vv. 27, 28. Further (xai) enforcement of the azag, ver. 26, by means of 
an analogy. As death is appointed to men once for all, they, after 
having once suffered death, do not need to die again, but after death 
nothing more follows for them but the judgment; so also Christ has once 
for all offered up Himself for the canceling of sin; at His return He will 
not again have to offer Himself for the canceling of sin, but He will 
return once again, only to put the believers in possession of the everlasting 
salvation.—xaf’ éoov] inasmuch as [ef. vii. 20], is not entirely synonymous 
with xadéc, which one might have expected on account of the following 
ovtwe, and which Grotius and Braun conjecture to have been the original 
reading; for, whereas xa¥éc would express the bare notion of comparison, 
this contains at the same time an indication of cause. The indication of 
cause, however, has reference merely to adra& axo¥aveiv, to which then the 
anak rpocevexdeic, ver. 28, corresponds; but not likewise, as Kurtz main- 
tains,) to the addition pera dé tovro xpiow, since to this an element of 
dissimilarity is opposed at ver. 28. The sense is: inasmuch as men, 
regarded generally, have only once to undergo death, so also Christ, since 
He was herein entirely like unto His brethren, could not die more than 
once.—aréxerrac] is appointed (in the decree of God). Comp. Col. i. 5; 
2 Tim. iv. 8. The verb originally of that which has been laid aside, and 
so lies ready for future use.—draf arovaveiv] to die a single time, or once for 
all. Comp. Sophocles in Stobaeus, 11.120: Saveiv yap gix &eore role avtoiot 
dic.—Calvin : Si quis objiciat, bis quosdam esse mortuos, ut Lazarum et 
similes (comp. Heb. xi. 35), expedita est solutio, apostolum hic de ordinaria 
hominum conditione disputare: quin etiam ab hoc ordine eximuntur, 
quos subita commutatio-corruptione exuet (comp. Heb. xi. 5).—pera dé 
Tovro Kpiow] sc. aréxerrat, NOt éoriv or éoraz. Whether, for the rest, the 
kpiowe is thought of by the author as ensuing immediately after the death 
of each individual (Jac. Cappellus, Kurtz, al.), or as a later act coinciding 
only with the general resurrection of the dead (Bengel, Bleek, Tholuck, 
Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, al.), the elastic werd rovro affords us no intima- 
tion.—xpiow|] judgment, is to be taken quite generally. Wrongly is it 


1 According to Kurtz, the resurrection and point of view of a judgment exercised on 
ascension of Christ is then to be thought of as Him? And how could it be expected of the 
the result of the xcpiov.s on Christ’s part. But reader, without further indication, that he 
where is ever in the N.T. the resurrection should derive so sirange a conception from 
and ascension cf Christ presented from the the words of vv. 28, 29? ; 


CHAP. Ix. 27, 28. 627 
understood by Schulz (and so also B6hme) specially of the judgment unto 
punishment or unto condemnation, in that he supposes—erroneously, 
because at variance with the absolute roc av paroue—two different classes 
of men (those to be punished and those to be blessed) to be opposed to 
each other in vv. 27, 28. [Yet comp. John v. 24.] 

Ver. 28. “Arai xpocevexfeic] once offered (by the suffering of death). 
Chrysostom : m6 rivoc xpooevexieic ; vg éavtov dyAovore. Wrongly (comp. 
éavtov, vv. 25, 14) Delitzsch: in connection with the passive zpocevexGeig we 
have “ to think of the violence proceeding from the human and demoniac 
power, which Christ endured, in order to become the zpoogopa for the pro- 
pitiation of mankind;” Kurtz and Hofmann: id roi Geod is to be sup- 
plemented, which, accordingly, is interpreted by Kurtz into the signifi- 
cation of the “ sending of the Son into the world, in behoof of the vica- 
rious atoning for sin by means of His sacrificial death;” by Hofmann: 
into a “ being brought to that place where He was to be at the disposal of 
Him who had ordained Him to be an expiatory sacrifice for sins.” The 
words azaf zposevexOeic correspond to the azaé azofaveiv, ver. 27, and pooe- 
veydeic forms a paronomasia with the following aveveyxeiv: borne as a sacri- 
fice, that He might bear away, dargebracht, um fortzubringen [oblatus ut 
auferret]. For aveveyxeiv denotes not the bearing up (and fastening) to 
the cross,! or the substitutionary bearing? or the offering up of the sins, as it 
were, as a sacrifice,? but the expiation of sins, conceived under the form 
of the result immediately of necessity attaching itself thereto, 7. e. the put- 
ting away of sins, in such wise that it takes up again the idea expressed by 
el¢ abérnoww auaptiac, ver. 26, and becomes identical with agarpetv duapriac, x. 
4. From a linguistic point of view this interpretation encounters no diffi- 
culty (against Delitzsch and others), since the avd in aveveyxeiyv Was em- 
ployed not otherwise than, e. g., very frequently the avd in avaipeiv. How 
easily the notion of bearing in ¢épew could pass over into that of bearing 
away or doing away with, is shown in the kindred verb Baordfew, which is 
unquestionably used, Matt. viii. 17, John xx.15, in the sense of auferre.* 
—roi2av} here too, as ii. 10 and often (see p. 122), lays stress only on the 
notion of multitude or plurality, without regard to the question whether 
this plurality constitutes the totality of mankind or not.—é« devtépov og67- 
cera] shall appear the second time before the eyes of men, namely, at His 
Parousia. According to Bleek, there arises a difficulty from the words, 
if we explain rpoceveybeic of the death suffered upon earth, and not, with 
him, of an action accomplished in heaven, only after the resurrection, in- 
asmuch as in the former case Christ already appeared in a visible form the 


1 Jac. Cappellus, Caloy, Wolf, Bengel, and 
others, after 1 Pet. ii. 24, where, however, emi 
to évAov is employed with it. 

2 Augustine, de pecc. mer. i. 28; Estius, Seb. 
Schmidt, Bohme, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bis- 
ping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He- 
braerbr. p. 544f.; Alford, Maier, Conybeare, 
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, and 
others, in accordance with the signification 


of the verb, Isa. liii. 12, LX X.: avros auaptias 
ToAA@y avyveyxke, an utterance which certainly 
may have been before the mind of the author 
at the time of his writing this passage. 

3 Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Michaelis. 

4Comp. also Galen, de compos. medicam. 2: 
Wwpas Te Sepamevet kat UTwmia BagTager. 


628 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. > 


second time after His resurrection. But such difficulty does not at all 
present itself in connection with that application of zpoceveybeic either. 
For ék devrépov op6goerac can only be understood of a second appearing in a 
visible form upon earth; when, however, Christ after His resurrection 
appeared again to His disciples, He had not yet left the earth; those 
manifestations of the risen Christ before His ascension belonged conse- 
quently to His first visible coming forth upon earth.—ywpi¢ dwapriac] forms 
the opposition to cic 76 ToAA@v aveveyKeiv duaptiac, is therefore to be inter- 
preted after the analogy of these words. (Erroneously Bleek, according 
to whom ywpic duapriac forms the opposition to ei¢ aféryow duapriac dia THC 
Buoiacg avtov repavépwras, ver. 26.) Christ has once offered Himself up for 
the expiation of the sins of men; when He returns to earth the second 
time, He will not once more have to do with the expiation of human sin, 
but He will, apart from sin, or free from all relation to sin, appear to bring the 
cwtnpia to the believers. Free from the guiltand punishment of sin, Christ 
has already rendered His believers by means of His sacrificial death at 
His first appearing upon earth. Positively, He will bless them with sal- 
vation at His return. To combine yopic¢c auapriag with tote atexdexo- 
pévog by means of an hyperbaton (so Faber Stapulensis and Grotius) is 
grammatically impossible. The sense, however, cannot be either, as the 
Irvingites will, that Christ Himself will be free from sin at His second 
appearing, in opposition to the lust which they suppose to have attached 
to Him during His first appearing ; for that Christ during this period too, 
notwithstanding all the temptation to which He was subject, was free 
from sin, the author certainly distinctly asserts at iv. 15. Incorrectly also 
does Bleek! take ywpic auapriac as equivalent in signification to p7 obay¢ 
duapriac, so that the sense would be: “at the return of Christ sin will no 
longer be present, at least in the domain to which the operation of the 
Redeemer will relate.” Even in a grammatical respect this application of 
the words is inadmissible, since ywpic auaptiac must stand in relation to 
the subject in o¢37oeraw, thus cannot be torn away from this reference by 
being made equivalent to an independent participial clause. But also the 
thought thence arising would be encumbered with difficulty, as Bleek 
himself admits, by the addition of “at least,” etc., although Bleek has 
sought to justify it. Additional misinterpretations of yopi¢ ayaptiac are 
met with in other writers. Thus it is supposed to mean: without, again 
vicariously laden with the sins of men, being made sin (2 Cor. v. 21) for 
them,” whieh is already refuted by the erroneousness of explaining the 
foregoing aveveyxetv of the vicarious bearing of sins; without the punish- 
ment of sin ;* without the sufferings undertaken for sin;* sine corporis, 


1 After the example of Theodore of Mopsu- 2 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Akers- 
estia (70 yap xwpis amaptias ToUTO A€yet, OTL MT] loot, Wolf, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Sehmid, Hein- 
Kpatovons €TL THS AmapTias oOUTW Kai richs, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, De- 
autos fw mavrTos avOpwrivov mabous obOncetar litasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
tore) and of Theodoret (ovKéTre THS amap- 545, Obs.; Alford, Maier, Moll, and others. 
Tias KpaTovons, avTi TOV XWpav ovUKETL 3 Klee, al. 
éxovoys KaTa Tov avOpwrwy THS amapTias). 4Tholuck. 


NOTES. 629 


peccato obnoxii, mortalitate ;! sine sacrificio pro peccato;? not as a sw/- 
ferer for the guilt of others, but as the holy judge of the guilt of others,’ 
and so forth, all of which have the plain expression of the language 
against them.—ei¢ owrypiav] belongs to o¢djoera, not, as it is true, upon the 
retention of the spurious addition (see the critical remark) did ziorews, it 
must be conjoined, to azexdeyouévore.t For toi¢ airov arexdexouévorg contains 
a non-essential element of the statement, ver. 28; ei¢ cwrypiav, on the other 
hand, an essential element of the same. ei¢ cwrypiav, namely, is the 
positive nearer defining of the negative ywpi¢ duapriac, and forms conse- 
quently, like the latter, an antithesis to ei¢ rd roAAdv aveveyKeiv dpapriac. 
The whole clause, however, é« devtépov . . . ei¢ owrypiav, corresponds to the 
second member of the clause, ver. 27: pera dé rovTo Kpiowg. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LXVII. Vv. 1-14. 


(a) The subject of viii. 1-6 a is taken up anew and presented more in detail in 
these verses. In the development of the thought, as here given, there are four 
steps, as follows:—1l. (vv. 1-5). The old covenant had its arrangements for wor- 
ship and its sanctuary. The old tabernacle had two parts, an outer one—the 
holy place, and an inner one—the holy of holies, with furniture appropriate to 
each. 2. (vv. 6, 7). This being the arrangement of the tabernacle, the rule 
respecting it was, that to the outer part free admission was given to the priests, at 
all times, but into the innermost part entrance was prohibited to all except the 
high-priest, and to him it was allowed only once a year. 3. (vv. 8-10). This rule 
was a divine indication that, so long as the old tabernacle, with its exclusion from 
the holy of holies, i. e. from immediate access to God, continued, the more perfect 
system was not yet reached. 4. (vv. 11-14). This more perfect system Christ 
brings, when He passes through the veil and, entering the higher, i. e. the heavenly 
sanctuary, as the heavenly high-priest opens the way for all His followers to the 
immediate presence of God. 

The view of Liinemann here—that, in ver. 9 ff., the writer, “by means of one 
of those sudden transitions of which he is so fond,’ turns to a new topic, the 
inability of the Levitical sacrifices “really to atone,” and thus introduces “ a third 
main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ,” is erroneous. That the 
writer is fond of making such sudden transitions, may be doubted. Here, at least, 
he does not make one in the way that Liinem. supposes. What is said of the 
Levitical sacrifices is only incidental and subordinate to the progress of the 
thought as set forth above, and neither here, nor in ch. viii., does the writer move 
beyond the idea of Christ as superior to the Levitical priests because He is the 
minister of a higher sanctuary connected with a better covenant. (See also Note 
LXV b.) 

(b) koopexdv of ver. lis added, as Liinem. remarks, not in the way of an inde- 
pendent predication respecting the ayov, but rather as a passing suggestion of its 
character as contrasted with the dyiov which is to be alluded to afterwards.— 


1 Zeger. others. 
2 Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, M’Caul, and many. 4So Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Camera 
3Ebrard, Delitzsch; similarly Stein and rius, Wolf, Klee, Paulus, Stein, 


630 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


(c) The several things which are mentioned in vy. 2-5 as connected with the two 
parts of the tabernacle, are not specified for the purpose of giving a detailed 
description of the arrangements. This is evident, both from the fact that the 
object of the whole passage is inconsistent with such a purpose, and also from the 
closing words of ver. 5. The writer simply wishes to present the fact, with 
emphasis, that there was this division, with appropriate arrangements, preparatory 
to the presentation of the rule of the old system, which he is about to mention, 
and which is distinctively characteristic of it—one of its essential elements as a 
religious system. This peculiarity in the writer’s purpose may fairly be considered, 
in connection with the difficulties which his distribution of the things specified 
occasions. So far as some of these difficulties are concerned, it may offer a 
satisfactory explanation; as e.g., when he says that the Holy of Holies had 
(éyovca) the golden altar or censer, it may suggest that the participle is used in a 
looser sense than would be possible, if the purpose were to give a minute descrip- 
tion. But with reference to the bearing of these verses on the question of the 
Pauline anthorship, the fact of this peculiarity will hardly be sufficient to account 
for his presenting the matter in this way—(d) The question whether the altar or 
the censer is intended by @vucarjpiov (ver. 4), is one which cannot be answered with 
confidence. R. V. places censer in the text, and altar of incense in the margin, 
A. R. V. place the former in the margin and the latter in the text. The considera- 
tions presented by Liinem. make it not improbable that A. R. V. is correct. But 
we cannot properly go beyond this position, and exclude censer altogether—(e) In 
vy. 2, 4, aya and ayia dyiwv being distinguished from each other, the former 
means the Holy place, but everywhere else in the chapter ayia (vv. 8, 12, 24, 25) 
means the Holiest place i.e. the immediate presence of God. In a similar 
manner, the demands of the thought in different places change the sense of tpdry, 
so that, while in ver. 1 it means first in time, in vv. 2,3, 8, it has the local sense. 
Thus in ver. 8, the writer evidently means to say that, so long as the outer part of 
the tabernacle continued—that is, so long as there was a veil shutting off the 
inner part,—the way of access to God was not fully opened. 

(f) Ver. 9 declares that the tpéry oxyv4 (ver. 8)—which involved, so long as 
it continued, the existence of a separating veil—was a rapaBodd sic Tov Karp, 
éveor., i.e. a figure or emblem of the Jewish system in its imperfection, with 
reference to the «&pé¢ or period to which it belonged. ‘The Holy place, a 
divided from the Holy of Holies, became in itself, to the mind which rightly 
apprehended its meaning, a kind of parabolic representation of Judaism, and just 
as the Holy place, as thus separated, must cease to exist and the Holiest place be 
opened, in order to perfect communion with God, so the Jewish system must pass 
away and open into something higher and better.—.rdv k. éveor., is best taken as 
in contrast with Karpov Siophacewe—(g) ka? 7v.——Liinem. is probably correct in 
referring 7 (like #ric) to mpdrye oxyvyc. It was in accordance with the arrange- 
ment which thus shut out the presence of God by a veil, i. e. the existence of a 
mpat, ox, that imperfect and temporary offerings were instituted. This reference 
to gifts and sacrifices is not for the purpose of introducing a new thought, but only 
of showing, more fully and emphatically, the imperfection of the religious system 
which involved the outer part of the tabernacle and the separating veil. The 
offerings are essentially connected with the approach of the worshiper to God, 
with the perfecting which is the end in view, and hence with the work of the 
high-priest as ministering in a sanctuary. The allusion to them, therefore, is a 


NOTES. 631 


part of the presentation of Christ’s ministration as compared with the Levitical. 
But the main thought is the same throughout the entire passage: that He is 
superior because He is priest of a higher sanctuary. 

(h) Vv. 11-14. The parallelism of dia rie pweifovoc... oxmvi¢ and 61a Tov idiow 
aiuatoc, (comp. ver. 7, the high-priest goes in through the veil, not without 
blood), indicates the correctness of the view that the sacrifices are mentioned as 
entirely subordinate to the ministry in the sanctuary. The use of dd in the 
second case, instead of with, is doubtless for rhetorical impression —(i) That dd of 
ver. 11 has the local sense is shown by the correspondence with ver. 7, and by the 
prominence of the local idea throughout all the preceding verses. That the 
greater and more perfect tabernacle means the lower heavens, as Liinem. holds, is 
suggested by the comparison with iy. 14: “passed through the heavens.’ The 
objection made to this view, on the ground that the heavenly sanctuary has no 
outer part, may be met, perhaps, by supposing that the writer conceives of Christ 
as removing the veil by thus passing through the heavens, and that it was in this 
way that the higher sanctuary became open to all, with immediate access to the 
Divine presence. But the writer may, possibly, have no idea of an outer part 
here, and may refer simply to a passing from the door of the sanctuary to the 
place of offering, the throne of God—the lower, visible heavens being the door of 
entrance.—(j ) evpduevoc is best understood, with Liinem., as antecedent to 
eio7jAbev and as referring to Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. By making this sacrifice 
He obtained a redemption which was eternal, and not for a time only, and then 
He entered into the presence of God with this offering. Comp. vy. 24 ff. of this 
chapter.—(k) aiwviov mvebuatoc (ver. 14) does not seem to refer to the Holy 
Spirit, (1) because, as Liinem. says, the substitution of the adj..aiwy, for dyiov 
would be indistinct and liable to be misunderstood—we may add, such a substitu- 
tion would here be unnecessary ; (2) because the course of thought in the chapter 
does not suggest the idea of the Holy Spirit; (3) because the contrast with the 
Levitical sacrifices implies an act of Christ’s own spiritual nature, as distinguished 
from the offering of a victim other than Himself. The absence of the article, also, 
renders it improbable that the Holy Spirit is referred to, for, though the article 
might be omitted with dyiov, we should not expect such an omission, in a passage 
like this, with the adjective aiwviov. The reference must be, accordingly, to 
Christ Himself. It was His own eternal spirit, through the action of which He 
offered His sacrifice. That the writer of the epistle believed Christ to have a 
divine (spiritual) nature, is not to be doubted. Whether he intended, however, to 
express this thought, in this phrase, may be questioned. More probably, he is 
moving in the sphere of thought which is suggested by the contrasts of the 
chapter, and in which also, in the recapitulatory passage (x. 1 ff., comp. especially 
vv. 5 ff), he evidently moves. 


LXVIII. Vv. 15-22. 


(a) In vv. 15-28 the thought of viii. 6 6-13 is developed more in detail :—As 
minister of a higher sanctuary, Christ has connection also with a better covenant. 
The close relation of the two thoughts is indicated by xa? dca rovro at the beginning 
of ver. 15.—(6) The presentation of the subject is as follows:—1. The statement 
of the fact, ver.15a. 2. In order to His becoming the mediator of the new covenant 
—the divine covenant having a testamentary character—His death was necessary, 


632 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


vy. 15 6-17. 3. This necessity of a death was recognized in the Mosaic system, 
vy. 18-22. 4. For the higher system—that connected with the new covenant 
and the heavenly sanctuary—a nobler sacrifice was needed, and with this sacrifice 
Christ entered as high-priest into the presence of God, vy. 23, 24. 5. The 
offering which He has there made does not need to be repeated, vv. 25-28. It 
will be noticed that here, as in the previous passages, the idea of the sacrifice is 
subordinated to that of the offering in the sanctuary. 

(¢) dca tovro refers to vv. 11-14, which present the idea of Christ as having 
appeared as the minister of the higher sanctuary, and as accomplishing thereby, as 
high-priest, the work of the higher system, reAeiwore—(d) The retroactive work- 
ing of the death of Christ is here presented, as it is, in a way somewhat similar, in 
Rom. iii. 25.—(e) The word d:a#jxy passes from its regular N. T. sense of covenant 
into that of testament as the discourse moves from ver. 15 to vy. 16, 17, and returns 
again to that of covenant in vy. 18 ff. Kay, in the Bible Comm., Angus, in Schafl’s 
Pop. Comm., and one or two recent American writers have attempted to show 
that the meaning testament is to be rejected, and covenant to be adopted in vv. 16, 
17 ; following, in this point, the writers mentioned by Litinemann. The attempt 
is unsuccessful, and the arguments presented by Liinem., Bleek, Alf., Moll, and 
others against this view are conclusive. As Moll remarks, it is “convicted of 
error at once by the utter falseness of the idea that in the formation of a covenant 
the death of him who framed it is indispensable, as well as by the intolerable 
harshness of any other mode of explaining 6 dvaféuevoc.” The fact that the 
Divine covenant involves an inheritance (Aypovoyia) gives it a certain testa- 
mentary character, which completely accounts for, and at the same time justifies, 
the change in the shade of meaning from covenant to testament (testamentary 
covenant). With this change, the clauses of vv. 16, 17 become sufficiently simple; 
without it, hopeless difficulties arise—(f) p7rote is made an interrogative word by 
R. V. text, a negative word by R. V. margin. A. R. V. places the negative in the 
text, and the interrogative in the margin. That “ror is used in the later Greek 
after émet as substantially like obzore, is shown by what Winer says in his N. T. 
Gram., p. 480, and, if it can be thus used, the negative is somewhat more in harmony 
with the simple and confident style of the argument than the interrogative—(q) 
ovev—the inference is legitimate so far as the covenant is of a testamentary char- 
acter, which is the view taken of it-here. The victims and blood of the O. T. system 
were, like all things in that system, imperfect and symbolic, but all the arrange- 
ments and ordinances, in this regard, followed in the line of the universal princi- 
ple and necessity alluded to. This is- set forth, first, in the statement of what 
Moses did ‘at the inauguration of the old covenant and afterwards (vv. 19-21), 
and, secondly, in the setting forth of the general provision of the law (ver. 22). 





LXIX. Vv. 23-28. 


(a) Ver. 23 is introduced by ov and presents a twofold conclusion from what 
precedes. In the progress of the thought, however, the connection would be more 
naturally given, if the verse had read: If it was necessary that the copies, etc., or, 
As, accordingly, it was necessary, etc., it was, as a natural consequence, necessary 
that the higher sanctuary should be purified with better sacrifices.—(b) xaapit- 
eolac need not be pressed, in its application to the heavenly tabernacle, into the 
same meaning that it has as applied to the earthly one. Throughout the entire 


NOTES. 633 


section, the writer uses words with reference alike to the earthly and heavenly, 
which he trusts the intelligence of his readers to modify in their meaning, and to 
interpret according to the demands of each case. Here the word is, probably, 
carried over to the heavenly sanctuary, only as indicating that there must be a 
better sacrifice before men can find free access to the immediate presence of God. 
—(c) Ver. 24 suggests the thought: “and it is into this heavenly sanctuary that 
Christ has entered.” The writer introduces the verse with the particle ydp, 
which, as Liinem. says, confirms the aira ta érovp., by showing that it is, in 
reality, the heavenly sanctuary that is consecrated by the sacrifice of Christ. 
This, however, may be regarded as only the grammatical and more immediate or 
minor connection of the thought In the main connection and progress, the 
suggestion mentioned above gives the force of the verse, which forms a transition 
from ver. 23 to ver. 25 ff. It is into the heavenly sanctuary that Christ entered, 
taking with Him the offering of the nobler sacrifice. He did this once for all, 
since the offering needed to be made only once.—(d) The nobler character of 
the offering is presented, in vv. 25 ff., especially in the point that it did not need 
to be repeated. Liinemann is clearly wrong in his interpretation of tpoogépew 
(ver, 25) as referring to Christ’s offering Himself as a sacrifice on earth. This is 
what is indicated by tafety of ver. 26. The whole course of thought in the 
passage, which has reference to the high-priest in the sanctuary ; the eto7/Jev and 
éugavicdjva of ver. 24; the eioépyerae.... év aiuate addorp.; the contrast with 
raveiv:—all these things show that tpoogépecv denotes Christ’s presentation of 
Himself with His blood before God in the heavenly Holy of Holies. The 
sacrifice is, accordingly, as everywhere in this section of the epistle, subordinate to 
the offering of the blood in the sanctuary. The high-priest’s ministry in the 
presence of God is the subject constantly kept before the reader’s mind. 

(e) That the offering does not need to be repeated is proved by two argu- 
ments:—l. By the fact that, if there were such need, there would be a similar 
necessity of a repeated sacrifice, as in the Levitical system—but that there is no such 
necessity of ever-renewed sacrifices is indicated by the historical facts of the 
case. He has not suffered oftentimes since the foundation of the world, but now, 
at the consummation of the ages, He has been once manifested to put away sin by 
His sacrifice. 2. By the analogy of the case of men. As they die but once, and 
that which is appointed for them afterwards is not death, but judgment; so He 
has died once for all, and what awaits Him in the future is another thing than 
death—an appearance for the bringing of salvation to those who wait for Him. 

(f) The development of the thought in these later verses is subordinated to 
the statement of ver. 15 a, and serves to show how the covenant of which Jesus is 
the Mediator is a better one than that connected with the O. T. law. The cove- 
nant, is better, since it secures salvation. But that He, as High-Priest, is the me- 
diator of the new covenant, only as He is the minister of the higher sanctuary, is 
also shown by the development of these verses. 

(g) As to particular words and phrases in vv. 23 ff, the following points may 
be noticed:—1l. The writer uses words as descriptive of the old tabernacle in an 
unusual sense, in some cases, as e. g. btode/yuata (ver. 23, comp. also viii. 5) in the 
sense of copy, and not example or pattern, its original meaning (comp. tapaderyya) ; 
avtitura of the earthly (ver. 24) and réizov (viii. 5) of the heavenly. The O. T. 
things, according to the more natural mode of regarding them, are tivo; the 
N. T. and heavenly things, the “»7/ruro. The conception of this writer, in these 


634 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


places, is not of types, in the ordinary sense, but of the heavenly pattern and the 
earthly copy answering to it—2. étovpava (ver. 23) means the heavenly sanctu- 
ary.—3. The emphatic position in the sentence which is given to ei¢ yerpor. ay., 
and, by contrast, to ei¢ ait. ovpavév (ver. 24), indicates both the grammatical and 
logical connection of this verse with ver. 23 and the following context. See (c) 
above.—4. vuvi (ver. 26) is the logical, not the temporal adverb: as the case stands.— 
5, ovvtedcia Tov aidvev (ver. 26):—comp. Matt. xx. 28, ovvrédeva Tov aldvoc ; 
1 Cor. x. 11, ta TéAy Tov aidvev KaTHyTnKev ;—the, ending together of the ages.— 
6. azaé, as used in this chapter, means once, apparently in the sense of once for all.— 
7. ywpic dyapriac, apart from those relations to sin which He had when He 
appeared the first time on earth and made atonement for it by His sacrifice 
of Himself. 


CHAP. X. 635 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. | reads in the Recepta: Exeav yap iywv 6 véuoc Tdv peAAdvtTwv ayadav, ovK 
aUTHY Ti Eikdva TOV Tpay“atwr, Kat’ éviavTdv Tai¢ avTaic¢ OBuoiaic, Gc Tpoovépovow 
ei¢ TO diyvenéc, ovdérote divaTae Toi¢ mpocepyouévovc TEAe@oa. Instead thereof, 
Lachm. takes the words Z«vav . . . mpayuatwy as an independent clause, placing 
a full stop after zpayudtwv, He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative 
before zpoogépovorwv,—while in the larger edition he has again added the a¢ of 
the Recepta before this verb,—places a comma after mpoodépovow, and writes 
dbvavrac in place of dvvaraz, This punctuation and form of the text given by 
Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection 
with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent state- 
ment, éoriv must be supplemented to éyov. Such supplementing, however, would 
be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how 
the participle éy#v should come to be written for the finite tense éyev, which 
naturally suggests itself. In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes 
by means of yap would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become 
an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting 
relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before 
mpoogépovowv is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philo- 
nex. then insert ai before ovdérore. Instead of the Recepta ac mpoodép. there is 
found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 187, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which 
Tisch., in the edit. vii. (comp. Pars I. p. exci.), has designated as N, with Theo- 
doret, as well as in a Ms. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: al¢ 
mpoodép., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta 
ac, which is supported by C D*** E (?) K &, the majority of the cursives, and 
many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding 
end in acc, a¢ might easily also be changed into aic. The Recepta divaray, 
finally, is attested by D (* and ***) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt. 
al., Chrys. Theodoret (text), Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural dévavrac 
(preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner mar- 
gin) is presented by A C D** ®, about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.) 
Theodoret (comm. ?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense, 
and can on that account be regarded only asa transcriber’s error, which was 
occasioned by the foregoing plural zpoogépovow.—Ver. 2. "Exel obk av éxaicavto] 
Elz.: éwei av éxaboavro, Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of 
most cursives, vss. and Fathers.—The preference to the Recepta kexadapmuévove 
is deserved by kexavdapiopuévove (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, 
Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favor of kexatapiopuévove pleads not 
only the testimony of D E K 8, 23** 87, 39, al., but also the form which in A G 
has risen as a transcriber’s error from the same Kkekateptouévove, which latter 
Lachm. has adopted.—Ver. 6. Recepta here and yer. 8: evdéxyoa¢. Better at- 


636 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


tested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and ver. 8 
(by A D* [E?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and 
Alford, as also approved by Delitasch: 7idé6xyoa¢.—Ver. 8. In place of the 
Recepta Guciav kai rpoogoparv, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly 
read the plural: @vaiac¢ kai tpoogopdae, in accordance with A C D* &* 17, 23, 
57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to at- 
tention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its confor- 
mation to ver. 5.—In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete 76, 
which the Recepta adds before véyov, as not being found in A C, &, 37, 46, 71, 73, 
al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily 
possible than its rejection—Ver. 9. tov romjoa] Elz.: tov morgjoas, 6 Ode. 
Against AC D E K 8* 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt. al., 6 @e6¢ is a complement- 
ary addition from ver.7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm., Scholz, Bleek, 
de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche—Ver. 10. Instead of the mere dé in 
the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd. 
Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: of 6dvd4. Bloomfield places of within 
brackets. But oi (se. #jysaovévoc) is wanting in A C D* E* 8, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theo- 
doret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination oévoz 
in 7ylaouévor gave rise to the writing of éoév oi,—In place of Tov cémarog in 
the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have toi aiuatoc. Mistaken 
emendation, since Tov couaroc, ver. 10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to 
the citation cdua dé Katyptiow pol, ver. 5.—Ijoov Xpiorov.] Elz.: tov "Iycod 
Xpcorov, But the article has against it the testimony of all the uncials, many 
cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, 
Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. — Ver. 11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, 
Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: tac piv iepevc. Defended 
also by Bohme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by 
the reading: ta¢ wév apycepetc, which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al, 
Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth. Arm. Theodoret 
(text), Cyril. Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin. 
Geney., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and 
Alford. Ifthe ordinary Leyitical priests had been intended, oi iepei¢ would, as 
is rightly cbserved by Bleek, have been written instead of ac iepetc, since each 
single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable, 
on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard 
to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general 
could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the 
same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the 
parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordi- 
nary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: 7a¢ 
pév Lepedve, is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account 
of the following «af 7juépav, since this stood in apparent contradiction to 7a@¢ pév 
apyvepevo—vVer., 12. oiroc dé] Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: airi¢ 
dé. But oito¢ dé (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek, 
Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche ; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded 
by the preponderating authority of A C D* E &, 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr. 
Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damase. al.—Instead of the 
Recepta: év de&+G, Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: éx de&ca», 
which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 (8* has é« deéa, which by 8***: 


CHAP. X. 637 


was changed into év deéi@). Rightly, therefore, has Lachm. returned in his larger 
edition to the Recepta.—Ver. 15. peta yap TO eipyxévar] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 
2 and 7, Bloomfield, Reiche: “eta yap td xpoe:pnkévar. Against decisive 
witnesses (A C D E y, 17, 31, 47, al. m. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. Tt. Vulg. 
Chrys. Theoph. Ambrose, Sedul.). Already held suspected by Griesbach.—_Ver. 
16. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche: 
int Tov dcavolor, after D** and *** E K L, most cursives and vss., Chrys. 
Theodoret, al., Ambrose, al. On the other hand, A C D* x, 17, 31, 47, al., 
Vulg. (Amiat. Harlej.* Tolet.) have: éxi tyv dcdvorav, Approved by Lachm. 
Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading —Ver. 17. Elz. Matthaei, 
Scholz, Bloomfield: ~v7o06. More correctly, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, 
Alford, after A C D* E 8* 17: uvnodhoouat, which Griesbach has placed upon 
the inner margin. /v7o0@ was carried over from viii. 12—Ver. 22. Recepta: 
éppavtiopévor. After A C D* N* Lachm. writes: pepavtcopévos, Tisch. and 
Alford: pepavtcouévor.—Ver. 29. The words év » #jytdo87 are deleted by 
Lachm. in the stereotype edition ; but are rightly, since they are omitted only by 
A and Chrysostom, retained by him in the larger edition —Ver. 30. The addition 
following avtarodoow in the Recepta : aéyer Kiproc, is rejected by Tisch. 1, 2, 
and 8, after D* 8* 17, 23* 67** Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Arab. Erp. Ambr. 
Bede, and is regarded by Mill (Prolegg. 496), Bengel, Griesbach, and others as 
probably a gloss. Bloomfield encloses it within brackets. It is nevertheless pro- 
tected by A D*** E K L 8*** etc. Syr. Philonex. al., and many Fathers. 
Rightly, therefore, has it been received again by Tisch. into the edit. vii. Delitzsch, 
Alford, and Reiche also have lately decided in favor of its genuineness.—The 
Recepta kiprog Kpivet we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A D E K 
N* 31, 73, al, Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Aeth. Theodoret (semel), to transpose into Kpivet 
ktiptoc, Bleek and Delitzsch read, after D E, 55, 71, Vulg. It. Theodoret (sem.) : 
dre kpevei Koploc, Quite similarly, LXX. Deut. xxxii. 36; Ps. exxxv. 14— 
Ver. 34. roic decuioc] Thus we have to read, with Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, 
Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others, after A D* [as Cod. B breaks 
off at ix. 14, so also x. 24-xii. 15 is wanting in Cod. C] 47, 67** 73, al., Syr. utr. 
Arab. Erpen. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Antioch. Damase. Theodoret (comm.), 
Oecum. (comm.) Pelag. Ambrose, al. From toi¢ decpioce arose, by a slip on 
the part of the copyist, To“¢ decuoic, which is found with Origen, Exhort. ad 
martyr. 44, and to which the vineulis eorwm of the Latin translation in D E corres- 
ponds; while, then, tov desuoic was completed by means of a gloss into the 
Recepta, still defended by Matthaei, Bloomfield, M’Caul, and Hofmann: tov¢ 
deapoicg pov (D*** EK Ly, ete.), in that Paul was regarded as the author of 
the epistle, and thus was found expressed an acknowledgment of the sympathy 
manifested by the Palestinian Christians towards himself during his imprison- 
ment.—In that which follows, the reading: éyerv éavroic, very strongly con- 
firmed by D E K L, almost sixty cursives, Chrys. Theodoret, Isidor. iii. 225, 
Damase. Theoph., already adopted into the Editt. Complut. Erasm. 1, Steph. 1 
and 2, and later preferred by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Tisch. 
2 and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, is to be held the original one, inasmuch as 
from this reading the rise, as well of the Recepta : Eyerv év Eavtoicg (which, as 
it would seem, rests only upon a few cursives), as also of the reading afforded by 
A x, four cursives, the early fragment in Matthaei, Vulg. It. al., and followed by 
Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8: éxeev Eavrows, is to be explained.—The addi- 


638 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


tion: év ovpavoic¢ after vtapsw in the Recepta is wanting in A D*x* 17, in 

“ the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al. 
Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after wévovcay. Elucidatory gloss, suspected 
by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 
Delitzsch, Alford—Ver. 35. Recepta: wicbarodociav weyadanv. With Lachm. 
Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into weyaAnv probaro- 
dociay, after A D Ey. the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al. 
Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al—Ver. 38. The Recepta omits the ov, which is 
found in most mss. of the LXX. after tiotewc. D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin 
version in D KE, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after tiotewe. On 
the other hand, it is found after dixavog in A yx, Arm. Vulg., in the early frag- 
ment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret 
(alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have aaopted it at 
this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read, 
inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A. 


Vv. 1-4. [On Vv. 10-18, see Note LXX., pages 658-660.] Presentation in 
a Clearer light of the necessity for Christ’s offering Himself only once for 
the expiation of sins (ix. 25-28), by pointing to the ineffectiveness of the 
expiatory sacrifices continually repeated within the domain of Judaism. 
This constant repetition attests that sins are still ever present, as indeed 
a canceling of sin by the blood of bullocks and of goats is impossible. 
[LXX a.] 

Ver. 1. [LXX 6 1, 2.] Establishment of the arat rpoceveybeic sig rd 
ToAA@v aveveykeiv duapriac, 1x. 28, as being the main thought lying in ix. 
25-28, by making good the opposite state of the case in the province of 
the O. T. theocracy: “ For since the law contains only a shadow of the 
future good things, not the actual likeness of the things, it is not able by 
means of the same sacrifices every year, which are unceasingly offered, 
ever to make perfect them that draw nigh.” The emphasis of the propo- 
sition rests partly upon the characterization of the law as cxidv éyov 
«.7.4,, partly upon xar’ éviavtov taic avtaic Moiac, ac mpoodépovow eic¢ 
TO OLnvekéc. The author, however, cannot thereby mean, as the words 
at first hearing might seem toimply, that the law, in case its contents were 
no mere oxida tov peA2bvTwv ayabov, would in reality effect the teAeiwore by 
means of its ever-repeated expiatory sacrifices. For, as is shown by vv. 2 
and 3, the author already bases upon the very fact of the yearly repetition 
of the Mosaic expiatory sacrifices the proof for their inadequacy. We must 
therefore suppose that two independent. particulars of thought have been 
blended together into a single statement. One can resolve the matter 
either in such wise that oidérore dSivata teAeraoa is looked upon as the 
common predicate for both particulars: the law is incapable of leading to 
Tedeiworc, because it contains a mere oxida «.7.A.; and certainly it is inca- 
pable, by means of its ever-repeated sacrifices, of leading to reAeiwoce. 
Or in such wise that the second particular is thought of originally as an 
inference from the first, from which the oidérore dtvara: x.7.2. 18 then pro- 
gressively derived: because the law contains a mere oxida tov peAAdvTov - 


CHAP: x.) 1h, 2: 639 


a)a06v, there is found in its domain an unceasing repetition of the same 
expiatory sacrifices ; by this unceasing repetition, however, it is never able 
to lead to perfection. The latter analysis is to be preferred, because by 
means of it the opposition, required by the course of the argument, be- 
tween the once offered and the ofttimes repeated expiatory sacrifice, 
comes out clearly and definitely in all its severity; while the characteriza- 
tion of the véuoc, on the other hand, as oxdv éyor x.7.4., is made only that 
which here, in harmony with the context, it alone can be, 7.e. a mere 
subsidiary factor in the argument.—oxdv] a shadow, which is unsubstan- 
tiated, melts away into obscurity, and only enables us to recognize the 
external outlines. Opposite to this is the eixav, the image or impress, 
which sets before us the figure itself, sharply and clearly stamped forth. 
See on vill. 5. Freely, but not incorrectly, does Luther translate: ‘the 
very substance of the good things.” —rév peAAdvtwv ayabov] see at ix. 11.— 
tav mpayuatwr] different from tov pueAAdvtwy ayadov only as respects the 
more general form of expression.—xar’ évavrév] belongs neither to 
ovdérote dbvata,! nor to d¢ mpoodépovow,? in which latter case the words 
would have to be resolved by raic Outiaic, Gc Kar’ éviavtiv tag avTac Tpoopé- 
povowv, or something similar. But kar’ évavrév is rather to be taken in 
intimate combination with rai¢ avraic: with the same sacrifices every year. 
The author forebore writing rtai¢ aitaicg Kar’ éviavtov Ovoiaic, in order that he 
might accentuate each notion equally strongly. As, moreover, with kar’ 
éviavtév in this place, so also elsewhere with adverbs which in point of mean- 
ing may be compared with it, such as dei, toA2AdKc, etc., a transposing is noth- 
ing rare. Comp. Winer, p. 514 f. [E. T. 553.]—raic airtaicg Guoiac] Those 
meant are, as is required by kar’ évavtév (comp. also ver. 4) only the sacri- 
Jices on the great day of atonement, not also the daily sacrifices of propitia- 
tion (ver. 11), as B6hme, Stein, and others suppose.—zpoodépovor] se. the 
Levitical high priests. Wrongly Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 
446), who in general has entirely failed in his interpretation of the state- 
ment:? the mpocepyduevor—eic rd dijvexéc] Note of time to rpoodépovow. 
If we should seek, with Paulus, Lachmann, and Hofmann, /.c., to con- 
join el¢ 7d divexéc With that which follows, the relative clause d¢ rpocdé- 
povory would be deprived of all signification —rod¢ mpocepyouévovc] those 
who approach God through the medium of the Levitical priests, thus 
identical with rote Aatpebovrac, ver. 2, ix. 9. [LXX b3.] 

Ver. 2. [LXX }b 4.] Proof for the kar’ éwavrdv taic abt. Ovo. ovdérore 
dbvatat Tove Tpocepyouévove TeAe@oac In the form of a question: for otherwise 
would not their presentation have ceased? because the worshipers, so soon as 


1Ebrard, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 446; Alford. 

2Calvin, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Heinrichs, 
Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, and others. 

8 Namely, in that he brings out as the sense 
of the same, “the propitiatory sacrifice, 
which is, as it were, offered by the law itself, 
because offered at its direction and by the 
high priest for the congregation,” is here 


“convinced of its manifest incapacity for 
effecting real and abiding purity of con- 
science for the individuals. This conviction 
is wrought by the fact that, notwithstanding 
this sacrifice has been offered every year for 
the whole congregation, the individuals still 
continue throughout the year to offer sacri- 
fices for themselves”! 


640 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


they have once been really purged from sin, have no more consciousness of sins, 
and thus no more need of an expiatory sacrifice. In connection with the 
Recepta érei av éraicavro, the sense itself would remain unchanged, only 
the words would then have to be taken as an assertory statement (“for 
their presentation would have come to an end, because,” etc.); by which, 
however, the discourse would suffer in point of vivacity (observe also the 
a2Aa, ver. 3, corresponding to the question of ver. 2). But the process is 
not a natural one, when Beza, edd. 1 and 2, Wetstein, Matthaei, Stein, and 
others (comp. already Theodoret) will have the proposition of ver. 2 
regarded as an assertory statement, even with the retention of the ovx. 
They then explain either (and thus ordinarily) : for otherwise their presenta- 
tion would not have ceased, sc. by the coming in of the New Covenant,! or, 
in that érei . . . tpoopepduevac is Closely attached to the main verb of ver. 
1, and dia 76 pydeuiav x.7.A. is regarded as belonging to the whole proposi- 
tion, vv. 1, 2: the law was not able by its sacrifices to lead to perfection, 
since AGE presentation was an endless one; because those who are once 
purified have no longer any consciousness of sins. So Wetstein, who, 
however, will write—what in that case, no doubt, would be necessary and 
Boueeey justified—oix dveratcavro instead of obk av éxatoarvto ( . 
“quum non cessarent offerri. Ita quidem, ut haec verba, sublata free 
tinctione majori, jungantur iis, quae praecedunt, deinde sequatur totius 
sententiae confirmatio: quia sacrificantes,” etc.). But against the last- 
mentioned mode of explanation it is decisive, that the relation of the 
members of the sentence to each other would become obscure, and the 
arrangement cumbrous; against the first-mentioned, the pre-supposition, 
underlying the d¢ rpocdépovaw ei¢ Td dSinvexéc, Ver. 1, as well as the epistle in 
general (ix. 9, al.), that the Jewish sacrificial eae was still in continuance 
at the time of our author’s writing.—éraicavro mpoogepbuevar] sc. ai Ovoiar. 
The construction of rateoda: with the participle is the ordinary one, in 
classic as well as in Hellenistic Greek.2—roic¢ Aatpetiovrac] see at ix. 9. 
Ver. 3. Contrast to rd pydemiavy Exew ett ovveidnow ayapTi@v Tov¢ AaTpeb- 
ovrac.’ In such wise, however, that the offerers should have no more 
consciousness of guilt, the matter does not stand; on the contrary, there 
lies in the yearly repetition of the sacrifices the yearly reminder that sins 
are still remaining, and have to be’ expiated.t—év airaic] sc. taic Avaiac.— 
avéprnow] not: commemoratio, or commemoratio publica (Bengel and 


1 Beza: alioqui non desiissent offerri; Mat- ver. 3, points back to the kindred ovveténour 


thaei: non cessavissent, non sublata essent; apaptiay, ver. 2. 
comp. Theodoret: Ata todro téAos éxeiva 4Comp. Philo, de Victim. p. 841 A (with Man- 
AapuBaver, ws ov Svvapeva ovveidyow Kabapay gey, II. p. 244): Evnées yap tas Ovatas py 
amropyvar. AjOnv auaptywatwv, ad’ Uropvyow avTav 
2Comp. Eph. i. 16; Col. i.9; Acts v. 42, al. ; katackevacerv.—De plantat. No?, p. 229 B (I. p. 
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 771; Winer, p. 323 f. 345) at... O@volac .. . VrouiuvygKovaa Tas 
[E. T. 345]. éxaoTwv ayvolas Te kat Stauaptias.—Vit. Mos. 
8 To join on the words of ver. 3 to those of iii. p. 669 E (II. p.151): Kat yap omore yiver@as 
ver. 1, and then to look upon ver. 2asaparen- Soxovarv (sc. the Svoiac and evxai of the 


thesis (Kurtz, Hofmann), is inadmissible, impious), ov Avow apapTnudroy GAN’ Vrouynosr 
even—apart from the adda, of frequent use epyagovTat. 
after a question—because avapvynots auapTior, 5 Vulgate, Calvin, Clarius, al. 


CHAP, 35-5: 641 


others), so that we must think of the confession of sin’ which the high 
priest made on the great day of atonement with regard to himself and 
the whole people ;? but: reminding, recalling to memory. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 
24, 25; Luke xxii. 19. 

Ver. 4. Proof that it cannot be otherwise, drawn from the matter itself 
which is under consideration. By a rudely sensuous means we cannot 
attain to a nigh spiritual good. 

Vv. 5-10. [LX X 6 6, 7.] Scripture proof, from Ps. xl. 7-9 [6-8], that 
deliverance from sins is to be obtained, not by animal sacrifices, but only 
by the fulfilling of the will of God. On the ground of this fulfillment of 
God’s will by Christ are we Christians sanctified. 

Ver. 5. Aw] Wherefore, i. e. in accordance with the impossibility declared 
at ver. 4.—Aéyer] He saith. As subject thereto is naturally supplied Christ, 
although He was not mentioned again since ix. 28. This determination 
of the subject is already placed beyond doubt by the whole connection, 
but not less by the pointing back of tov c@uato¢g “Inoot Xpiorov, ver. 10, to 
soya dé Katyptiow pot, ver. 5. According to the view of our author, Christ 
is speaking? in the person of the psalmist. The psalm itself, indeed, as is 
almost universally acknowledged, refuses to admit of the Messianic interpre - 
tation (comp. especially ver. 183 [12]). The present 2éye+, moreover, might 
be placed, because the utterance is one extending into the present, 7. e. one 
which may still be daily read in the Scripture.—eicepyoyevoc ei¢ tov xéopov] 
at His coming into the world, i.e. on the eve of coming (see Winer, p. 249 
[E. T. 265]) into the world # (sc. by His incarnation). This determining of 
time is taken from the jx, ver.7. According to Bleek,® the author in 
penning the words eisepyduevoc ei¢ tov xéouov was thinking “less of the 
moment of the incarnation and birth than of the public coming forth upon 
earth to the work assigned to Him by the Father, in connection with 
which His entrance into the world first became manifested to the world 
itself.” But in that case ciceAdov must have been written, and the formula 
eloépyectat ei¢ Tov xéouov (John i. 9, vi. 14, xi. 27; Rom. v. 12; 1 Tim. i. 15, 
al.) would lose its natural signifigation. The same applies against 
Delitzsch, who, bringing in that which lies very remote, will have the 
words explained: “incarnate, and having entered upon the years of 
human self-determination, signified Isa. vii. 16,’—an exposition which is 
not any the more rendered acceptable, when Delitzsch adds, with a view to 
doing justice to the participle present: “we need not regard the eisépyecdac 
ei¢ TOV Kéouov aS a point; we can also conceive of it as a line.”® For the 


1Tract. Jom. iv. 2, iii. 8, vi. 2. 

2Schlichting, Grotius, Braun, al. 

3 Arbitrarily does Kurtz place in Aéye a 
double sense, in that he will have it under- 
stood on the part of the psalmist of a speak- 
ing in words, on the part of Christ of a speaking 
by deeds. 

4Without reason do Delitzsch and Alford 
object against this interpretation, that the 
following g@®pza katypticw por is not in 


4] 


harmony therewith. See the exposition of 
the words. 

5 Who is preceded therein by Grotius, and 
followed by de Wette,as more recently by 
Maier and Beyschlag, die Christologie des 
Neuen Testaments, Berl. 1866, p. 192. 

®So, in accord with Delitazsch, also Alford, 
who observes: “It expresses, I believe, the 
whole time during which the Lord, being 
ripened in human resolution, was in intent 


§42 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


author cannot possibly have thought of Christ’s eicépyeodar sic tov Kéopor, 
and His aéyew temporally therewith coinciding, as something constantly 
repeated and only progressively developed.—raiav Kai rpoodopav oi 
nvéAnoac| sacrifice and offering (bloody and unbloody sacrifices) Thou didst 
not will. Kindred utterances in the O. T.: Ps. 1. 7-15, li. 18 ff. [16 ff]; 
Isa. i. 11; Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21-23 ; Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21 ff.; 1 Sam. xv. 22. 
That, however, the author founded his Scripture proof precisely upon Ps. 
xl., was occasioned principally by the addition, very important for his 
purpose: cdua dé Katyptiow pot, Which is found there.—oaua dé Katnpricw 
por} [LXX 6 8.] but a body hast Thou prepared me, sc. in order to be 
clothed with the same, and by the giving up of the same unto death to 
fulfill Thy will. Comp. ver. 7. Thus, without doubt, the author found in 
his copy of the LXX. But that the Hebrew words: 7) 2 DIN (the ears 
hast Thou digged to me, 7. e. by revelation opened up religious knowledge 
to me), were even originally rendered by the LXX. by céua 62 xatnpricw 
jot, aS is contended by Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, 
Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others, is a supposition hardly to be enter- 
tained. Probably the LXX. rendered the Hebrew words by daria dé 
Katnptiow jot, as they are still found in some ancient Mss. of that version, 
and céua 6% Katypticw pou arose, not “from the translator being unable to 
attach any satisfactory meaning to the words ‘the ears hast thou digged 
to me,’ and therefore altering them with his own hand” (Kurtz); but 
only from an accidental corruption of the text, in that %, the final letter 
of the 734iyoa¢ immediately preceding, was wrongly carried over to the 
following word, and instead of TI the letter M was erroneously read. 

Ver. 6. In burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hadst Thou no pleasure— 
LXX. Cod. Vatic.: dAokatraua . .. ovk yrnoac; Cod. Alex.: dAokavtéuata... 
ov élAtnoac.—Kai mepi dyuaptiac] Oecumenius: tovréste mpoodopav epi 
duaptiac. Elsewhere also occasionally (Lev. vii. 387; Num. viii. 8, al.) the 
LXX. denote the sin-offering by the mere zepi duapriac, in that the addi- 
tional notion of sacrifice is naturally yielded by the context. Stein’s ex- 
pedient for avoiding all supplementing of the idea, in translating xai by 
“also” (“Thou hast also no pleasure in offerings for sin”), is grammat- 
ically inadmissible. —etdoxeiv] with the accusative also not rare elsewhere in 
Hellenistic Greek. Comp. LXX..Gen. xxxiii. 10; Lev. xxvi. 34, 41; Ps. 
li. 18, 21, al. Besides this in the Hellenistic eidoxeiv év (x. 38), with Greek 
writers ebdoxeiv Tue. 

Ver. 7. Tére eizov] then said I. In the sense of the writer of the epistle : 
then, when Thou hadst prepared for me a body. In the sense of the com- 
poser of the psalm: then, when such deeper knowledge was revealed to 
me. Contrary to the usage of the language, Carpzov, Stein, and others 
take rére as equivalent to ideo, propterea, while just as capriciously Hein- 
richs makes it redundant as a particle of transition.—év kegarids BiBdiov yéy- 
pantac repi éuov] is a parenthesis; so that tot morjoae depends not on 


devoting Himself to the doing of His Father’s Tov matpos mov?’ was one of the opening 
will: the time of which that youthful announcements.” 
question, ‘ Wist ye not that I must be év rots 


CHAP. x. 6-9. 643 


yéyparrat, as Paulus thinks, but upon 7«w: Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy 
will. Comp. ver. 9. Otherwise truly with the LXX. (and in the Hebrew), 
where tov rovwjoac is governed by the closing verb nBovagiynv, Which is 
omitted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (rov roujoa: rd GéAnud cov, 6 Bede 
ov, 7BovaySqv: to do Thy will, O God, is my delight)—éy cegadrids 
BcBriov yéypantrar mepi évov isin the Hebrew differently connected 
and applied. In the sense of our author: in the prophecies of the O. T. it 
is written of me.—xegaric, little head, then the knob at the end of the 
staff, around which the manuscript roll was wound in antiquity. Kke@aric¢ 
BcBAiov consequently denotes the book-roll, volume. Elsewhere also the 
LXX. translated the Hebrew map (volumen), with and without the addi- 
tion of BiBriov, by Keparic. Comp. Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1-3; Ezra vi. 2.—rd 
JéAnua] in the sense of our author: the obedient presentation of the body 
as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. 

Vv. 8-10. Contrasting of the two main elements in the citation just 
adduced, and emphasizing of the fact that the one element, upon which 
God lays no stress, is represented by Judaism; the other, to which value is 
attached in God’s sight, is represented by Christianity —arérepov] above, in 
the opening words of the declaration.—Aéywr] sc. 6 Xproréc. The parti- 
ciple present, in place of which Schlichting, Grotius, Bleek, de Wette 
expect that of the aorist, is employed here, even as Aéyev, ver. 5, because 
the utterance, as being recorded in Scripture, is one still enduring. Only 
the author makes manifest, by the fact that he writes Aéyov, not eiév or 
4éEac, that less importance is to be attached to the indication as to the 
relation of time, in which the two statements are placed to each other, 
than to the contrasting of these two statements themselves; thus: while 
He saith above, etc., He has then said, ete.—ir:] recitative participle, as vii. 
17, xi. 18.—voiag kai xpoodopac] The plural appropriately serves for the 
generalization of the utterance.—airwee kata véuov mpoodéportar] as those 
things which are presented by virtue of legal precept. Suggestive reference to 
the imperfection and ineffectiveness of Judaism, since this makes salva- 
tion dependent precisely upon those ordinances of external sacrifice which 
God willed not, and in which He has no pleasure. The words are no 
parenthetic clause, as is still maintained by Bleek and Kurtz, but an addi- 
tion essential to the argument of the writer, which does not interrupt the 
construction. They form the application, thus emphatically appended, of 
the first half of the thought in the Scripture citation, to Judaism, to which 
the parallel is formed in ver. 10 by the application of the second half to 
Christianity.—airwwec] refers back to the whole of the preceding substantives. 

Ver. 9. Tére eipyxev] are words of the author, and form the apodosis to 
avérepov Aéywv, ver. 8. [LXX.b9.] Quite erroneously does Peirce, who, 
with Chrysostom, Hom. xvii. and the Vulgate (tune dixi), instead of rére 
elpyxev will read rére elxov, which, however, only arose from ver. 7, make 
the apodosis begin first with dvapei 7d mpdtov.—r dre, however, not torepor, 
which would more exactly accord with the avérepov, ver. 8, the author 
wrote, because the rére eizoy of the citation was still fresh in his memory. 
—avaipei 76 mpartov, iva Td devtepov athoy] he abolishes the first, or deprives it 


644 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


of validity, in order to establish the second as the norm in force (Rom. iii. 
31). Parenthetic insertion, so that ver. 10 attaches itself closely to 7a 
6éAnua, and is to be separated therefrom only by a comma. The paren- 
thesis serves by way of exclamation to call attention to the importance of 
the application to be given in ver. 10 to the idod jxo «7.2. Subject in 
avapet is naturally here also Christ; not “the Spirit of God,” as Kurtz 
arbitrarily supposes.—rd rparov] sc. 7d mpoopéperv Ovaiac Kat mpoodopac K.7.2. 
—10 debrepov] sc. To roveiv Td OéAnua Tov Beov. Theodoret: xparov ele ray 
TOV GAdyuv Ovoiav, Sevtepov dé THY AoyeKhv, Thy bn’ abTov TpooEvexHeicav. Wrongly 
does Peirce take 7d xporov and 16 debrepov adjectivally, in supplementing 
to each 70 GéAnua Oeov. With equally little warrant Carpzov: the dab 
xporn and the diabpxy awh, or the iepwotvy Kata tiv taéEw ’Aapdv and the 
iepwotvy Kata duoidtnTa MedAyioedéx, are meant; as also Stein: the O. T. and 
the N. T. economy. 

Ver. 10. ’Ev @ OeAguati] upon the ground of which will (more exactly : of 
which fulfillment of His will), and in conditioning connection with that 
will. What is meant is the will of God, of which the author has before 
spoken.—7jy:aopévor éouév| we (Christians) have been sanctified (delivered from 
sins). ayvdfeoAac correlative to the notions teAeoicba, ver. 1, and xafa- 
pitecba, ver. 2.—By the mpoogopa tov cauatog Inoov Xprorowv cannot 
be meant “ the self-presentation of Christ in the heavenly Holy of Holies ” 
(Kurtz), but only (comp. ix. 28) Christ’s death upon the cross on earth. 
For the indication of the former idea the expression tov céuatoc would be 
altogether unsuitable. Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
475 f.—igaraz] belongs to yyacpévor éovév, not as Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Stein, Bloomfield, Alford, 
and others conjoin, to dia tye mpoodopac Tov GHpatoc "Inoov Xpictov, because 
otherwise the article t7¢ must have been repeated. 

Vy. 11-14. Renewed emphasizing of the main distinction between the 
Jewish high priest and Christ. The former repeats day by day the same 
sacrifices without being able to effect thereby the canceling of sin; Christ 
has by His single sacrifice procured everlasting sanctification. This the 
main thought of vv. 11-14. Into the same, however, there is at the same 
time introduced a subordinate feature, by virtue of the opposition of the 
éornkev and éxd@coev, by which likewise is manifest the pre-eminence 
of Christ over the Levitical high priests. The Jewish high priests were 
required to accomplish their ministration standing (comp. Deut. x. 8, xviii. 
7; Judg. xx. 28, al.), were thus characterized as servants or inferiors 
(comp. also Jas. 11. 3); whereas in Christ’s sitting down at the right hand 
of God, His participation in the divine majesty and glory is proclaimed. 

Ver. 11. Kai rac] cai is the explanatory: and indeed. It develops the 
égarag, ver. 10, and belongs equally to ver. 12 as to ver. 11.—édpyeepeic] 
comp. the critical remark.—xaf’ juépav] see at vil. 27. [LXX b10.J— 
reptedeiv] stronger than dgapeiv, ver. 4. Literally: take away round about. 

Ver. 12. Ovroc] comp. iil. 8.—eic 7d diyvexéc] belongs to éxa@ccev—With 
that which precedes is it conjoined by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, 
Bengel, Bohme, Stein, Ewald, and others; whereby, howevei, the manifest 


CHAP. x; “10=15. 645 


antithesis, which eic rd dinvexéce éxdbicev forms to éoTykev Kal’ juépav, ver. 
11, is destroyed, and the symmetry of the proposition, ver. 12, is lost. 

Ver. 13. Td Aorév] “henceforth, sc. from the time of His sitting down at 
the right hand of God. What is meant is the time yet intervening before 
the coming in of the Parousia. The taking of rd ovzév in the relative 
sense: “as regards the rest, concerning the rest ” (Kurtz), is, on account 
of the close coherence with éxdeyduevoc éwc, unnatural, for which reason 
also the passages adduced by Kurtz as supposed parallels, Eph. vi. 10, 
Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, do not admit of comparison. 
—The object of the waiting is expressed by our author in the language 
of Ps. ex. 1—The éxdOtoev ... rd Aourdy éxdeyvopevog éwe... in- 
volves for the rest the supposition that the destruction of the enemies of 
Christ is to be looked for even before His Parousia. The author accord- 
ingly manifests here, too, a certain diversity in his mode of viewing the 
subject from that of the Apostle Paul, since the latter (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 
22-28) anticipates the destruction of the anti-Christian powers only after 
the time of Christ’s Parousia. [LXX 6 11,12.] The supposition, which 
de Wette holds possible for the removal of this difference, that the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews “thought only of the triumph of the gospel 
among the nations, even as Paul also expected the universal diffusion of 
the gospel and the conversion of the Jews beforé the appearing of Christ,” 
has little probability, considering the absolute and unqualified character 
of the expression here chosen: of éy@poi abrov. 

Ver. 14. Proof of the possibility of the eic rd dinvexte éxdPicev bv deEia Tov 
Geov, ver. 12, from the needlessness for a fresh sacrifice, since Christ has 
already, by the sacrifice once offered, brought in perfect sanctification for 
His believers—The accentuation: ~.d yap 7 pocopa, merits the prefer- 
ence to ya yap rpooopa, to which Bengel is inclined, and which has been 
followed by Ewald, since by the former the words acquire an immediate 
reference to Christ.—roie dysafouévouc] them that are sanctified, sc. as regards 
the decree of God. The participle present is used substantively, as ii. 11, 
without respect to time. ; 

Vy. 15-18. That there is no need of any further expiatory sacrifice, the 
Scripture also testifies. This Scripture proof the author derives from the 
declaration, Jer. xxxi. 31-34, already adduced at viii. 8 ff., in that he here 
briefly comprehends the same in its two main features. 

Ver. 15. Mapropet 62 jyiv kat rd rvedpa 7d aytov] Moreover, also, the Holy 
Ghost bears witness to us—rjyuiv] has reference to the Christians generally. 
Without warrant is it limited by Raphel, Wolf, Baumgarten, and others 
to the author of the epistle (“the Holy Ghost attests my statement ’’).— 
70 mvevua 76 aywv] for it is the Holy Spirit of God who in the passage 
indicated speaks by the prophet.—The subject in eipyxéva: is God, in that 
the author makes his own the words Aéyer Kiproc following in ver. 16, 
although they form an originally constituent part of the citation, in such 
wise that pera yap rd eipyxéva.. . éxetvac forms the former member of the 
proposition; and to this former member all the rest, from didov¢ véuov¢g “ov 
to the end of ver. 17, is then opposed by the author as a concluding mem- 


646 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


ber, by means of Aéyer kipwoc. The supposition that the second, or con- 
cluding, member of the citation begins only with ver. 17, and that thus 
before this verse a éyex, an ir’ émiAéyer, a TOTE eipyKev, OF something of 
the kind is to be supplemented,' is to be rejected,—aithough the main 
consideration, about which the author is quite specially concerned, follows 
only in ver. 17,—because it is opposed to the literary accuracy elsewhere 
prevailing in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the same reason, too, the 
botepov Aéyer, Which several mss. (but only among those of late date) and 
some translations add at the close of ver. 16, is to be regarded as a gloss. 

Ver. 16. Instead of 7@ oixw ‘Iopaga, vill. 10, the author here places 
mpoc avtove. Certainly not unintentionally. By means of the more 
general rpd¢ avroic, the more definite reference to the natural descendants 
of the patriarch as the recipients of the New Covenant receded into the 
background.—d:dotc] attaches itself here also only to jv d:afycouac; here it 
is true, with yet greater grammatical ruggedness than at viii. 10. | 

Ver. 17. The «ai at the beginning of the verse is held by BGhme and 
Kuinoel to be a further varticle of citation on the part of the author; 
while Hofmann will have it translated by “also.” Better, however, 
because more naturally and simply, is it taken as a constituent part of 
the Scripture citation. 

Ver. 18. Toirwv] is not a newer (BOhme: “ut, quicquid esset peccati, in 
universum designaretur”), but feminine, inasmuch as it refers back to 
auaptiav and avoudev, ver. 17.—oixérc] sc. éoriv, there expiatory sacrifice no 
longer takes place, sc. because in connection with such a state it has become 
unnecessary. 


Ver. 19-xili. 25. The dogmatic investigations are at an end; on the 
ground thereof the author now applies himself anew to exhortations to 
the readers. These are at first of the same kind as those before addressed 
to the readers, and are distinguished from the latter only by their greater 
copiousness of detail, afterwards, however, assume a greater generality of 
contents. These fre followed by the close of the epistle. 

Vv. 19-25. [On Vv. 19 ff. see Note LX XI., pages 660-662.] The readers, in 
possession’ of such an exalted High Priest, and of the blessings obtained 
by Him, are with decision and constancy to persevere in the Christian 
faith, to incite each other to love and good works, and not—as had become 
a practice with some—to forsake the assemblies for Christian worship. 
So much the more should they thus act, since the Parousia is near at 
hand. Comp. on vv. 19-25 the similar exhortation iv. 14,16. [On Vv. 
19-25, words and phrases, see Note LX XIT., page 662.] 

Ver. 19. 0iv] Conclusion from the investigations made chap. v. onwards. 
—édeAgot] iii. 1, 12, xiii. 22—rappyciar] not: freedom or authorization,? but : 
jirm, joyful confidence.—ei¢ tiv eicodov tov ayiwv] in respect to entrance into 


1Primasius, Clarius, Zeger, Schlichting, Reuss, Hofmann, and others. 
Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Limboreh, Wolf, 2 Vatablus, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Ernesti 
Carpzoy, Stuart, Heinrichs, Alford, Conybeare, Schulz, Bohme, Stengel, al. 


CHAP. x. 16-20. 647 


the sanctuary, i.e. of entering into the sanctuary, or heavenly Holy of Holies 
(rév dyiwv, of the same import as «ic ra aya, comp. ix. 8). Arbitrarily 
would Heinrichs refer the words to the entering of Jesus, in that he 
regards eic¢ tiv eicodov Tov ay. év TO ai. Ijoov as equivalent to ei¢ tH» 
eicodov "Inoov év TH aivate avtov, which is impossible.— év 7@ aipare Tyoou | 
upon the ground, or by virtue of the blood of Jesus. Belongs to the whole 
proposition : éyovre¢ rappyciav tic THY eicodov TOV ayiwy, NOt merely to eicodov." 
The passage, ix. 25, by no means pleads in favor of the latter mode of 
apprehending it, since at ix. 25, but not in the present passage, év can be 
understood in the material sense: “with;” the reference of the év aiyare 
in the two places is an entirely different one. 

Ver. 20. "Hy] sc. eioodov. Not as yet with 6d» (Carpzoy, Stuart, and 
others) is jv to be combined as indication of object, in such wise that 
merely mpécdatov kat Cooav would form the predicate; but still less is 
rappyciav (Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, al.) to be supplemented to jv. For 
against the former decides the order of the words, against the latter the 
manifest correspondence in which ¢icodov, ver. 19, and édév, ver. 20, stand 
to each other. The édéc, namely, characterized ver. 19 as to its goal (as 
eicodoc tov dyiwv), is, ver. 20, further described with regard to its nature 
and constitution (as ddd¢ tpécpatoc and (é0a).—iv évexaivioev juiv ddov 
rpéosarov Kai Cooav] which He for us (in order that we may walk in it) has 
consecrated (inaugurated, in that He Himself first passed through it) as a 
new (newly-opened, hitherto inaccessible, comp. ix. 8; Theodoret: ¢ rére 
mparov gaveicav) and living way. 7 péodaroe, originally: fresh slain ; then 
in general: fresh, new, recens.’—{ aoa, however, that way or entrance is 
called, not because it “ever remains, and needs not, like that into the 
earthly sanctuary, to be consecrated every year by fresh blood” (Bleek, 
after the precedent of Ernesti, Schulz, and others ; comp. also Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, and Theophylact), but because it is hving in its efficacy 
(comp. 6 aproc 6 Cov, John vi. 51), in such wise that it leads to the goal of 
everlasting life. The contrast is found in the inefficaciousness of the 
entrance into the earthly holy of holies.—écé rot xatarerdopatoc, tovtéoti 
rie capkde avtov] through the veil, that is to say, His flesh. As the high priest 
must pass through the concealing veil, in order to come within the earthly 
Holy of Holies, thus also the flesh of Christ formed a veil, which must 
first be withdrawn or removed (comp. Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke 
xxiii. 45) ere the entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies could be 
rendered possible.—d:4] is to be taken locally,—wrongly is it understood by 
Stein as instrumental—and is not to be combined with évexaivicev,> but is 
to be attached to 6dév, as a nearer definition, standing upon a parallel 
with zpéodarov xai Caoav, seeing that an otcav or ayoucav naturally suggests 
itself by way of supplement.—r7c capxd¢ aitow] depends immediately upon 
the preceding 64, not first, as Peirce and Carpzov maintain, upon a Tov 
kataretdouatoc to be supplied. 

lAkersloot, Storr, Schulz, BGhme, Klee, 3Bohme, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schriftbeva 


Paulus, Bleek, Bisping. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 253; Alford, Kluge. 
See Lobeck, ad Phryr. p. 374 f. 


648 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Ver. 21 is still governed by éyovrec, ver. 19. As ra aya, ver. 19, was 
chosen as a general designation instead of the special ra ay:a ayiwv, so 
here (comp. v. 6, vii. 1, 3, al.) the general iepéa stands in the sense of 
the special apyepéa, and péyayr is, as iv. 14, expression of the exaltedness 
of this High Priest (against Stuart, Klee, Stein, Ewald, M’Caul, and others, 
who take iepéa péyav together as a designation of the High Priest).—ézi 
tov olkov Tov Oeov] over the house of God. Comp. iii.6. Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Estius, Grotius, Calov, Tholuck, Stengél, Hofmann (Schriftbew. 
II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 454), Maier, Kurtz, and others understand by these words, 
in accordance with iii. 2, 6, the household of God, or the believers, by which, 
however, the unity of the figure is needlessly destroyed. The allusion is 
to heaven or the heavenly sanctuary, as the dwelling-place of God, over 
which Christ rules as High Priest. 

Ver. 22. pocepyéueba] let us then draw nigh, sc. to this ayia, ver. 19, and 
this iepede péyac, ver. 21, or, what is, as regards the matter itself, not 
different, to God; in such wise that mpocepyoueba is here, like robe mpocep- 
youévouc, ver. 1, used absolutely, or else receives its supplementation from 
the tov Geov immediately preceding. Comp. vii. 25, xi. 6; also iv. 16.— 
per’ aanOivgc Kxapdiac] with true, i.e. sincere heart, so that we are really in 
earnest about the xpocépyeobar.—év tAypodopia riotewc] in firm conviction of 
faith, firm inner certainty of faith. Comp. vi. 11. Epexegesis of per’ 
aAnOuwge Kapdiac, for the clearer defining of the contents thereof—éppavric- 
uévoe Ta¢ Kapdiac ard ovvedhoews Tovnpac] inasmuch as our hearts have been 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, so that we have been delivered from the 
same (see Winer, p. 577 [E. T. p. 621]). Indication of the subjective 
qualification for the mpooépyeca, while vv. 19-21 contain the objective 
qualification for the same. What is meant, is the justification of Christians 
through Christ’s bloody sacrificial death (ix. 14), after the analogy of the 
sprinkling with blood, whereby the first Levitical priests were consecrated 
and qualified to approach God. Comp. Ex. xxix. 21; Lev. viii. 30. 

Ver. 23. The words: wat AeAovuévoe Td COma ddaTe Kabaps, are, by 
the Peshito, by ,Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Estius, Wolf, 
Baumgarten, Storr, Kuinoel, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, 
Delitzsch, ‘Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 741, Obs.), Alford, Maier, 
Kluge, and others, combined in one, and referred still to mpocepyepeba, ver. 
22, as a second participial clause. Better, nevertheless, shall we conjoin «ai 
with katéyouer; so that 2eMovpévor TO GOma date Kabaps becomes a 
parenthetic clause, which specifies the subjective qualification to the 
karéyew, exactly as éppavtionévor x.7.4., ver. 22, brought out the subjective 
qualification to the rpocépyeo#a. In connection with the first-named 
construction,? the rhythmical symmetry of the members, vv. 22, 28, would 


iThat Delitzsech—who is followed therein 2A third mode of combining, followed by 
by Alford—will have us understand, as the Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2,2 Aufl. p. 178 f.), 
olxos tod Gcod in our passage at the same according to which éppavtiopevor is separated 
time “the church” and “the heayen of glory,” —_ by a full stop from that which precedes, and 
ean be looked upon only as an instance of is conjoined with caréxwmev, will—since there-_ 
manifest error. by the harmonic clause-formation of the 


CHAP. X. 91-24, 649 


be needlessly sacrificed, and katéywuev stand there too much torn from the 
context. For the supposition that «ai might have been wanting before xaréy- 
wuev, since a third verb (xaravoduev) follows at ver. 24, the placing of the 
xai was thus necessary only before this last, is erroneous; inasmuch as 
the author could hardly, from the very outset, comprehend ver. 24 in 
thought with ver. 22, and ver. 23, on the contrary, only brings in later 
that which is observed at ver. 24 as a new and independent exhortation, 
while xpocepyoueba . . . kai xatéyouev stands together in the closest inner 
relation (as a decided approaching to the communion with God opened 
up by Christ, and a persevering maintenance of the same).—AcAouuévor rd 
oaua idate kabape | inasmuch as our body has been washed with pure water [washed 
as regards the body with pure water]. Reference to the sanctifying of Chris- 
tians by Christian baptism. Comp. Eph. v. 26; Tit. iii.5. Analogon in the 
Levitical domain the washings, Ex. xxix. 4, xxx. 19 ff., xl. 30 ff.; Lev. 
xvi. 4. To find denoted in a merely figurative sense (to the exclusion of 
baptism), with Calvin [Owen] and others, in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi. 
25: the communication of the Holy Ghost ; or, with Limborch, Ebrard, and 
others: the being cleansed from sins; or, with [Piscator and] Reuss: the 
blood of Christ “Tl s’agit ici, comme dans toute cette partie de l’épitre, du 
sang de Christ. C’est ce sang, qui nous lave mieux que l’eau des 
Lévites”); or, with Schlichting: ‘Christi spiritus et doctrina, seu 
spiritualis illa aqua, qua suos perfundit Christus, ipsius etiam sanguine 
non excluso,” we are forbidden by the addition of rd céua, which implies 
likewise the reminiscence of an outward act.—xafapo] that which is pure, 
and in consequence thereof also makes pure.—karéyouev tiv duodoyiav THe 
éAridog axdw7] let us hold fast the confession of hope as an unbending unswerr- 
ing one.—karéyouev] inasmuch as the éuoroyia became at once, with bap- 
tism, the possession of believers.—rijv éuodoyicv] may here be taken actively 
(the confessing of the hope), but it may also be taken passively (the confes- 
sion which has as its subject the Christian’s hope).—a«4:7] stronger than 
BeBaiav, ili. 6, 14.—rotd¢ yap 6 érayyeiAdpueroc] for faithful (so that He keeps 
that which He promises; comp.1 Cor. i. 9, x 18; 1 Thess. v. 24) is He who 
has given the promises (namely, God). Ground of encouragement for the 
KaTé yELv. 

Vv. 24, 25. Progress from that which the Christian has to do with 
regard to himself, to that which he has to do with regard to his 
fellow-Christians.—«ai katavoduev adAAAovce] and let us-direct our view to each 
other (comp. ili. 1), so that we may endeavor to emulate the good and 
salutary which we discover in our neighbor, and, on the other hand, to 
put away the bad and hurtful in ourselves and him. For limiting the 
expression, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Michaelis, ad 
Pierc., Bleek, and others, to the first-named particular, no reason exists; 
since the positive ei¢ rapofvoudv x.7.2. is yet followed by the negative py? 
éykataneimovtec K.T.A.—ei¢ mapokvouov aydrnc Kat Kadov épywv] that incitement 
whole delicately-arranged period, vv. 19-23, niously commenced would be lacking in the 


is rudely shattered—hardly meet with appropriate conclusion, the supposed new 
approval on any side. The period soeupho- clause in the appropriate beginning. 


650 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


to love and good works may arise therefrom.—rapofvopuéc] Acts xv. 89; Deut. 
xxix. 388; Jer. xxxii. 37, and elsewhere in the bad sense: irritation, i.e. 
embittering. Here, however, as occasionally with the classic writers, the 
verb is used! in the good sense.—aydazy] brotherly love, and xaia épya, 
the single manifestations thereof. 

Ver. 25. My éyxataieimovrec tiv éxiovvaywyny éavtdv, Kaba¢ ée€o¢ ticiv] while 
not forsaking (ceasing to frequent), as is the custom with some, our own 
assembly, and thereby, in connection with the already prevalent tendency 
to apostasy from Christianity, setting a pernicious example.—rjv éxiovvayw- 
yyv éavtov] is taken by Calvin, BOhme, Bleek, and others as designation 
of the Christian congregation or Christian religious society itself. But in 
this case the only. signification which could be attached without violence 
to éyxaraieimecy would be that of apostasy from Christianity ; to under- 
stand the expression, in that case, of the leaving to its fate of the Christian 
church, sunk in poverty, peril, and distress, by the refusal of acts of 
assistance (Bohme), or of the escape from the claims of the church to the 
cherishing and tending of its members, by the neglecting of the common 
religious assemblies (Bleek), would not be very natural. We are pre- 
vented, however, from thinking of an actual apostasy from Christianity by 
the addition cka%ac éFoc trvciv, according to which the éyxarateirew was 
an oft-recurring act on the part of the same persons. tiv éxcovvaywyy 
éavtav, therefore, is best explained as: the assembling of ourselves, in order 
to be united together (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 1), 7.e. our own religious assem- 
blies.—éavrov] has great emphasis; for otherwise the simple juév would 
have been written. It has its tacit opposition in the alien, i.e. Jewish 
religious assemblies, and contains the indication that the tuvée gave the 
preference to the frequenting of the latter —a/Aa zapaxatodtvrec]-sc. éavtove 
(comp. iii. 18) or a2A%20vc, which is easily supplemented from the fore- 
going éavrov: but animating one another, namely, to the uninterrupted 
frequenting of our own Christian assemblies. Quite unsuitably, Hofmann 
(Schriftbew. II. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 879) would supply in thought to rapaxadoivrec, 
as its subject: sv éxiovvaywyhv.—kai tooobtw paddov bsw BAérete éyyiLovoav 
tiv juépav] and that so much the more, as ye see the day itself drawing nigh. 
Reinforcing ground of obligation to the tapaxaieiv.—rérere] The transition 
from the first to the second person plural augments the significance of 
that which has been remarked, since the author can appeal to the verdict 
of the readers themselves for the truth thereof—The juépa is the day xa” 
éfoxqv, the day of the coming in of the Parousia of Christ, which the 
author thinks of as quite near at hand (comp. ver. 37), and which the 
readers themselves already saw drawing nigh in the agitations and com- 
motions which preceded the Jewish war, such as had already begun to 
appear. : 

Vv. 26-31. [On Vv. 26-31, see Note LX XIIL., pages 662, 663.] In the 
éykataheirew Thy éexiovvaywyjyv éavtdov, ver. 25, there was manifested a luke- 

1Comp. Xen. Memor, iii. 3. 13: ’AAAG pny  dgov drdotinia, rep MaALOTA Tapokiver 


evTe evpwvia TogovTov Siahepovow *APnvacor Tpos Ta KaAG Kai €vtipa; Thucyd. vi 
Tav GAAwY, OUTE TwHaTwY meyebeEr Kal pwun, 88, al. 


CHAP. X. 25-27. 651 


warmness in Christianity, which might lead to apostasy therefrom. In 
warning notes, therefore, the author points out that the man who know- 
ingly slights recognized Christian truth, and sins against it, will infallibly 
be overtaken by the punitive judgment of God. To be compared vi. 4-8. 

Ver. 26. ‘Exovsiwg yap duaptavévtev jov pera 70 AaBelw THv Exiyvwow THE 
aAndeiac] For if we sin willfully (ie. against our better knowledge and 
conscience) after having received the certain knowledge of the truth; so that 
we become recreant to Christianity (comp. ver. 29), to which the éyxaraAciren 
rv ériovvaywyyy éavtov forms the dangerous preliminary step. The éxovciuc 
dpaptavovrec are the opposite of the ayvoowre Kai rAavepuevo, V. 2,' and 
the participle present indicates the continuous or habitual character of the 
action.—7 4274 0eca is the truth absolutely, as this has been revealed by 
Christianity. The éxiyvooce of this absolute truth, however, embraces, 
along with the recognition thereof by the understanding, also the having 
become conscious of its bliss-giving effects in one’s own experience. Comp. 
vi. 4, 5.—obkére rep) duaptidv aroAeirerar Suoia] there remains in relation to 
sins, i.e. for the expiation thereof, no more sacrifice ; inasmuch namely, as 
the sin-canceling sacrifice of Christ, the communion of which we then 
renounce, is a sacrifice which takes place only once, is not further 
repeated, while at the same time the Levitical sacrifices are unable to 
effect the canceling of sins. Bengel: Fructus ex sacrificio Christi 
semper patet non repudiantibus ; qui autem repudiant, non aliud habent. 

Ver. 27. boBepa dé tig éxdoyy Kpicewc] sc. anodeimera: but there remains 
indeed, etc. The drodecméuevov is of two kinds, something subjective 
(goBepa . . . Kpicewc) and something objective (xupdc . . . brevavtiove).—doPBepa 
éxdoyy Kpicewc] denotes not “a terrible banquet of judgment,” as Ewald 
strangely translates it, nor is it any hypallage in the sense of éxdoy) Kpicews 
goBepac, as Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, and Stengel suppose, and to which 
the choice is left open by Wolf. The terribleness is transferred to the 
subjective domain of the expectation. For one who has sinned against 
better light and knowledge, even the expectation of the divine judgment 
is something terrible—gofepa tic] an exceedingly terrible one. On the reg, 
added with rhetorical emphasis to adjectives of quality or quantity, comp. 
Kihner, II. p. 331; Winer, p. 160 [E. T. 170].—xpicic] is used here, too, 
as ix. 27, quite without restriction, of the divine judgment in general. 
That this will be a punitive judgment is not indicated by the word ; it 
only follows from the connection—In the second member the emphasis 
rests upon the preposed wvpé¢, on which account also the case of the 
following participle conforms itself to this, not to ¢#A0c. We cannot, 


1The assertion of Kurtz, that, if this re- 
mark were true, the author would be express- 
ing “a dogma in its consequences truly sub- 
versive, and destructive of the whole Christian 
soteriology,” inasmuch as it would “impera- 
tively follow therefrom, that even under the 
New Covenant only those who transgressed 
from ignorance and error could find forgive- 
ness with God for Christ’s sake, while all who 


had been guilty of a conscious and intentional 
sin must beyond hope of deliverance fall 
victims to the judgment of everlasting dam- 
nation,” is a precipitate one, since the special 
limitation within which the expression 
éxovgiws amaptavery Was used was naturally 
afforded to the reader, quite apart from the 
investigation already preceding at vi. 4 ff. 
even from our section itself. 


652 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


therefore, with Luther and others, combine together supd¢ fyA0¢ in a 
single notion (“ fiery zeal,” sc. of the divine wrath). The zip is personified, 
and in such way a ¢7Ao¢, a fury, ascribed to the same. There was prob- 
ably present to the mind of the author in connection with the last mem- 
ber, LXX. Isa. xxvi. 11: CyAog Agperar Aadv araidevtov Kai viv rip Tove 
irevavtioug éedeta.—rtor¢ irevavtiovc] the adversaries. The empiric usage of 
the term forbids our attaching to it, with Braun and Paulus, on account 
of the iz6, the notion of secret foes. See Meyer on Col. ii. 14, 4 Aufl. 
p. 381. 

Vv. 28, 29. That in reality the consequences of an éxovoiwe duapravew 
peta TO AaBetv tiv éexiyvwow tH¢ aAywVeiac are so terrible as was asserted at 
ver. 27, the author renders evident by a conclusion a minore ad majus. 
Apostasy from the Mosaic law itself is punishable with death ; how much 
greater thus must be the punishment of him who, by apostasy from 
Christ, has treated with contumely the Son of God, of whose redeeming 
benefits he has already had experience! With the conclusion in vv. 28, 29 
we may compare, as regards the thoughts, ii. 2, 3, xii. 25; as regards the 
form, however, the utterances just noticed differ from that before us, in 
the respect that there the first member of the comparison appears as 2 
hypothetical premiss, here as an independent statement.—averjoac tic 
vouov Muiocéwe «.7.2.] He who has set at nought the Mosaic law, has in 
opposition to his better knowledge and conscience violated or broken it, 
dies, without any one compassionating him, wpon the deposition of two or three 
witnesses. Although death was imposed as the punishment for many 
single transgressions of the Mosaic law (Ex. xxi. 15 ff., xxxi.14; Ley. xvii. 
14; Deut. xxii. 22 ff, al.), yet the author certainly has reference, as is 
evident from the addition: émi duciv 7 tpiciv paprvow, and as is required 
also by the parallel relation to ver. 29, quite specially to the ordinance, 
Deut. xvii. 2-7 [cf also Num. xv. 80, 31], in conformity with which the 
punishment of death was inflicted upon the man who, by idolatry, apos- 
tatized from Jehovah. Comp. lec. ver. 6, LXX.: éxi duct paprvow 7% éxt 
Tplot pdprvow aroSaveirar.—éri] as ix. 17: wpon condition that two or three 
witnesses depose against him. 

Ver. 29. Of how much more severe nintiatinand think ye, will he be counted 
worthy, who, ete.—With doxeire the author leaves the decision to the 
readers, inasmuch as on the question how this will be given, no doubt 
whatever can prevail.—afwdjoera] sc. by God at the judgment.—ripopia 
in the N. T. only here—é -xatatarjoac] who has trodden under foot, as 
though it were a contemptible, useless thing. A strong expression. 
Designation of the bold- contemning and insulting of Him who is never- 
theless the Son of God, and with whom one has become personally 
acquainted as the Redeemer.—r6 aiua ric Sad KC] the blood of the covenant, 
ie. the blood which Christ shed for the sealing of the New Covenant for 
the redemption of mankind. Comp. ix. 15 ff.—xorvév] either: as common, 
ordinary blood, not distinguished in any respect from other blood,*? or— 


1Peshito, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cla- Stuart, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, 
rius, Beza, Schlichting, Bengel, Schulz, Bisping, Delitzsc th, Alford, and others, 


CHAP. x. 28-30. . 653 


what is better, because stronger, and on that account more in accord with 
the other statements—as impure,' i.e. as the blood of a transgressor, which 
Christ must be, if He was not the Son of God and the Redeemer.—év 4 
jytdo6y] contrasting addition to xowdv yynoduevoc, and paronomasia: by 
the communion with which he was nevertheless sanctified, or : the sanctifying 
efficacy of which he has nevertheless felt in his own person.—kai rd rveiua rie 
xapito¢ évuBpicac| and has done despite to the Spirit of Grace, sc. by scorn 
and mockery of the wondrous unfolding of that Spirit’s power in the life 
of the Christians. The compound form évBpifew tai or zi, found, apart 
from the poets (Soph. Phil. 342), only with the later Greeks. In the N. T. 
a drag Aeyduevov.—rd mveiua tHe xapitoc] the Holy Spirit, who is a gift of the 
divine grace. 

Ver. 30. The yeipovoc afwwfycetat tyuwpiac, ver. 29, is a matter for the most 
serious consideration. This the declarations of God Himself in the Scrip- 
tures prove.—oidayuev yap tov eixévra] for we know Him who hath spoken, i. e. 
we know what it means when God makes predictions like those which 
follow.—The first utterance is without doubt from Deut. xxxii. 35. It 
deviates from the Hebrew original (Dd>w dpa 5), but still more from the 
LXX. (év juépa éxduxhoewe dvrarodéow); on the other hand, it agrees to so 
great an extent with Paul’s mode of citing the same in Rom. xii. 19, that 
even the 2éyec xipioc, Which is wanting in Deuteronomy, is found in both 
these places. This agreement arises, according to Bleek, de Wette, De- 
litzsch, and Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 97 (comp. also BGhme), from a deriv- 
ing of the citation from the Epistle to the Romans; while according to 
Meyer (at Rom. xii. 19, 2d. 3d. and 4th ed.) the identical words: éy& dvra- 
rodaow, are to be traced back to the paraphrase of Onkelos (Dow S181) 
as the common source employed by Paul and the author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. Yet with much greater probability is the coincidence to be 
explained by the supposition that the utterance, in the form adopted here 
as with Paul, had become proverbial. This was also the later view of 
Meyer (see Meyer on Rom. xii. 19, 5th ed. p. 551 f.).—The second utter- 
ance: Kpivei KvpLocg TOV Aady avTov, attached by means of kai 7 dAuv 
(i. 5, 11. 13), is found in like form, Deut. xxxii. 36 and Ps. exxxv. 14. This 
kpivetv Tov Aady avrov has, in the mind of the author of the epistle, the 
general signification of the holding of judgment upon His people, so that 
the recreant members among the same will not be able to escape punish- 
ment. Different is the sense of the original: He shall do justice for His 
people. Delitzsch, it is true, who is followed therein by Maier, Kluge, Moll, 
and Hofmann, will not acknowledge such diversity of the sense. But he 
is able to remove such diversity only, in that—manifestly led thereto in 
the interest of a mistaken harmonistic method—he foists upon the author 
of the epistle the statement: “the Lord will do justice for His church, and 
punish its betrayers and blasphemers;” a statement of which the first 
half—as opposed to the grammatical meaning of «pivevv, as well as to the 


i Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, Carpzoy, Mi- luck, Ebrard, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. 
ehaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Bohme, Tho- __p. 769; Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others. 


654 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


connection with ver. 26, since this latter leads of necessity not to the idea 
of rendering justice to any one, but exclusively to the idea of punitive 
judgment—is only arbitrarily imported. 

At ver. 31 the whole train of thought, vv. 26-30. is briefly summed up, 
and_ with this the warning brought to a close. Fearful is it to fall into the 
hands of the living God,i. e. to fall a victim to the divine punitive judgment. 
Comp. Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4,5.—éuainrecy ei¢ yeipac kvpiov occurs 
also with the LXX. 2 Sam. xxiv. 14,1 Chron. xxi. 13, Ecclus. ii. 18, but 
is there used in the mild sense, in that it is opposed to falling into the 
hands of men. Bengel: Bonum est incidere cum fide; temere terribile. 
—6eov Cavroc] see at ill. 12. 

Vv. 32-39. [On Vv. 32-39, see Note LXXIV., page 663.] There 
follows after the warning an arousing. Mindful of the Christian manli- 
ness which the readers had displayed in former days, they are not to lose 
Christian joyfulness, but rather with patience to persevere in the Christian 
life; for only quite a short time will now elapse before the return of 
Christ and the coming in of the promised fullness of blessing. Comp. vi. 
9 ff.1—Of the facts themselves, of which mention is made vy. 32-34, nothing 
further is known from other sources. That the author, as Bleek, II. 2, p. 
707, thinks possible, had before his mind ‘“‘the whole first period of the 
Christian church at Jerusalem, in which the church still held firmly to- 
gether, and particularly the persecutions which preceded and followed the 
martyrdom of Stephen,” is hardly to be supposed. For only in a very 
indirect way could praise be bestowed upon the recipients of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews for their behavior under these afflictions, seeing they 
formed a second generation of the Palestinian Christians, who, according 
to xu. 4, had as yet been spared persecutions having a bloody termination. 

Ver. 82. burichévrec] after ye were illumined, i.e. after ye had recognized 
Christ as the Saviour of men, and ranked yourselves among His confes- 
sors. Comp. vi. 4.—é6270~]| a word of the later Greek style, in the N. T., 
however, a az7aé Aeyéuevov, combines with ta@yudtwv into a single idea: 
contest of sufferings?—tropévew] to sustain, here with the subsidiary notion 
of stedfastness ard unweariedness. : 

Ver. 33:,Tovro pév . . . tovro dé] on the one hand . . . on the other ; partly 
... partly. A genuinely Greek formula (comp. Wetstein ad loc.). Inthe 
N. T. only here.—rovro pév ovediopoic te kat OAinipeow Oeatpifduevor] in that, on the 
one hand, by conditions of infamy (xi. 26, xiii. 13) and by tribulations, ye were 
made a spectacle (were exposed publicly to reviling). ovecdcopoi (belong- 
ing to the later period of the Greek language)* has reference to the a+ 
saults upon honor and good name, @Aipecc to assaults upon the person 
(the life) and outward possessions.—@earpifduevor] comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9: béarpov 


1Theodoret: ’Eme:dy S€ tadta txava Fv 2Chrysostom: ovx amdds elrev addAnow 


avToUS aviagat, OALywpiay aiviTTOMEVA Kal TOV Urewetvate, GAAa meTa TMpoadyKyns TOV TOAARYV. 
Oclwy apédccay, Kepavvvot TOV Eipnucvwy To Kai ovx cime metpagmovs, aAAad addnow, orep 
GVOTNpOY TH pYnLNH TOV dn KaTOpIwpevwr. €oTiv éykwutov Svo“a kai eraivwy peyloTwv. 
Qviéevy yap otirws els mpodumtiav Sreyetper, ws %See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p, 512. 


Sv olkelwy KaTOpYwLaTwY LYN). 


CHAP: x. 31-35. 655 


tyernOnuev TH Kooum Kal ayyéAowe Kai dvOporoc. The verb only here and with 
the Church Fathers.—rotro dé kocvwvol . . . yevnbévtec] and, on the other 
hand, ye became associates (fellow-sufferers) . . . sc. by the administering 
of consolation, and by efforts for the alleviation of their sufferings.  xovw- 
wvoi yevnbévteg is elucidated by ovverabjoare, ver. 34, thus alludes equally 
as the first half of the sentence to historic facts. Arbitrarily therefore 
Ebrard : the expression indicates that the readers, “by the act of their 
conversion, had become once for all associates in that community, of 
which they knew that it thus fared, or was thus wont to fare with it.”— 
Tov obta¢ avacrpegouévwv] of those who were in such condition (se. év OAibeow 
kai ovecdioucic). Kypke, Storr, Bohme, Kuinoel, and others supplement the 
oitw¢ from the roadjy afdyow imeueivate Tabyudtov, ver. 82: of those who thus 
walked, 7, e. sustained with great stedfastness the contest of sufferings. In 
favor of this interpretation the authority of the ordinary Biblical use of 
avaorpégecha: may no doubt be urged. Since, however, roAAjv aOAnow bre- 
peivate Tadnuatwr, ver. 32, is the general statement, which afterwards, ver. 
33, separates into two special subdivisions by means of roiro wév . . . TovTo 
6é, 80 obrw¢ in the second member can only refer back to the immediately 
foregoing characterization in the first member. 

Ver. 34. [LX XIV ¢, d.] Confirmatory elucidation of ver. 33, and that in 
such form that kai . . . ovverafjoate corresponds to the latter half of ver. 
33, and kai . . . mpocedéEacbe to the former half thereof—xai yap roic deopiorg 
ovveratjoare] for ye had both compassion (iv. 15) on the prisoners, in that ye 
bestowed upon them active sympathy.—x«ai rv aprayyy trav irapybvtev buev 
x.7.A.] and also accepted (comp. x1. 35) with joy the plundering of your 
goods, with joy, or willingly submitted to it. Wrongly Heinrichs, accord- 
ing to whom zpoodéyeo#a: here expresses, at the same time, the idea of 
“exspectare”’ and of “recipere,” so that we have to translate: “ye 
looked for it.”—ywaokovrec Exe éavtoic xpeitrova irapEw kal pévovoav] indica- 
tion of motive for kat riv dprayny K.7.2.: knowing that ye have for yourselves 
(as your true possession) a better property (Acts ii. 45), and that an abiding 
one, namely, the spiritual, everlasting blessings of Christianity, of which 
no power of the earth can deprive you. Comp. Matt. vi. 20; Luke xii. 33. 

Ver. 35. Exhortation deduced from vy. 32-34. The self-sacrificing zeal 
for Christianity displayed in the past ought to animate the readers to a 
joyful maintenance of the same likewise in the present, since of a truth 
this very stedfastness in zeal leads to the longed-for goal.—arofdArev] here 
not the involuntary losing (Jac. Cappellus, Lésner, and others), but the 
voluntary casting from one, or letting fall away (comp. Mark x. 50), as 
though it were a question only of a worthless, useless thing; yj a70342- 
dev thus the same as karéyerv, ver. 23, iii. 6, 14, and xpareiv, iv. 14, vi. 18.— 
THY Tappyoiav buov] your joyful confidence, sc. towards Christ as your Saviour. 
The free, courageous confession of Christianity before the world, of which 
Beza, Grotius, and others understand the expression, is only the consequence 
of the tappyoia, which here, too, as ver. 19, iii. 6, iv. 16, denotes aframe of 
the mind.—jr1¢] which of a truth. Introduction of a well-known, indisput- 
able verity.—yeydAnv uicharodociav] great rewarding retribution (see at ii. 2), 


656 3 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


namely, the promised everlasting blessedness (ver. 36)—The present tye, 
although the pcfarodocia is as yet something future, of the undoubted cer- 
tainty of its containing in itself, or having as a consequence. 

Ver. 36. Justification of the foregoing exhortation pq aroBadyre. It is 
true the readers have already distinguished themselves by Christian man- 
liness ; but what is needing to them in order to reach the goal is stedfast- 
ness and perseverance, since they are beginning to grow lukewarm in 
Christianity. tronovge is therefore, as the principal notion, emphati- 
cally prefixed.—rd 6éAjua tov Yeor] that which God wills, or requires, i.e. in 
accordance with the context: not merely the having become believers in 
Christ, but also the stedfast continuance in faith unto the end. Theophylact: 
VéAnua Beovd TO aypr Tédove brousivac. Against the connection Bleek: 76 
éAnua Tou Seov is “ the sanctification of men by the sacrifice of the Son of 
God” (vy. 7,9, 10), and consequently the roeiv thereof the willing submis- 
sion to be sanctified by the Redeemer. Too general the acceptation of 
Tholuck (similarly Stein and others): “the regulation [Normirung] of the 
life in accordance with the divine will,” without further limitation, is that 
which is meant.—rojoavrec] refers not to that which, according to ver. 32 
ff., has already been accomplished by the readers (Bengel); nor does it 
denote something simultaneous with the xouifeoda:, or rather without re- 
gard to time therewith coinciding (Delitzsch, Alford); it is employed in a 
strictly aoristic sense, and points on to the future, inasmuch as the 7 orjoaz 
must already have become a completed fact, before the cowifecdar, as 
yet belonging to the future, can be realized.—rjv éxayyediav] the promise, 
i. e. that which is promised, the promised everlasting blessedness. 

Vv. 37,88. Ground of encouragement to the izouovs, of which the 
readers stood in need, expressed with a free application of the words of 
Hab. ii. 8, 4, according to the LXX. Continuance is necessary for the 
readers, and that continuance, indeed, only for a short time, since the re- 
turn of Christ is to be looked for within a very short space of time, and 
then to those who have persevered in the faith everlasting life will be the 
portion conferred ; the apostates, on the other hand, shall be overtaken by 
destruction —Tife words ére yap wixpdv bcov boov are not a constitu- 
ent part-of the citation, but proceed from the author himself.—juxpdv bcov 
éoov] is found Isa. xxvi. 20, and signifies literally : a little, how much, how 
much! ‘i.e. a very, very little, or a very short time. wexpdv (John xiv. 19, 
xvi. 16 ff.) is nominative-—not accusative to the question when, as is sup- 

_posed by Bleek (but only in his larger Comm. ; otherwise in his later Vor- 
lesungen, p. 417), Bisping, Alford, and Hofmann, as also Meyer on John 
xiii. 833,—and nothing more than éoriy is to be sinelence to the same 
(see Winer, p. 544) [E. T.585]. The reduplication of the écov, however, 
serves for the significant strengthening of the notion.'—é ipyduevoc Her Kal 
ov xpovel] and then He that cometh will come, and will not delay—LXX. l. ¢. 
ver. 3: duéte éte bpacie ei¢ Karpov Kai avartenei cic Tépag Kai OUK ei¢ Kevdv" Eav boTEp- 

1To be-compared Aristoph. Vesp. 213: ti  sdcov bcov ths xwpys. See Hermann, ad 


OUK amrekoLLAdnLEY OGOV Ooov oriAnv; Arrian, Viger. 726. 
Indic. xxix. 15: oAtyou S€ av’tav oreipovow 


CHAP. X. 36-38. . 657 


hon, bTouewvov avTov, OTL Epyopmevoc Heer kat ov wy ypovion. In thesense 
of the prophet, the discourse is of the certain fulfillment of the prophecy 
regarding the overthrow of the Chaldees. The LXX., however, wrongly 
translated the words, and as the épyéuevoc looked upon either God or the 
Messiah, of whom also the later Jewish theologians interpreted the passage 
(see Wetstein ad loc.). Of the Messiah the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews also understands the expression, and therefore adds the article 6 
to épyouevoc. In like manneré épyéuevoc appears, Matt. xi. 3, Luke vii. 
19,as a current appellation of the Messiah (based upon Dan. vii. 13; Zech. 
ix. 9; Mal. iii. 1; Ps. xl. 8 [7], exvili. 26). Only in the instances mentioned 
the first appearing of the Messiah upon earth is intended, whereas in our 
passage (as also very frequently by épyeoda elsewhere in the N. T., e.g. 1 
Cor. xi. 26; Actsi.11; Matt. xvi. 27,28; John xxi. 22, 23) the return of 
Christ, as of the Messiah crucified upon earth and exalted to heaven, for 
the consummation of the kingdom of God, is that which is referred to. 
Arbitrarily Carpzov, Heinrichs, Bloomfield, Ebrard, and others: a coming 
for the destruction of Jerusalem is here to be thought of. 

Ver. 38. [LX-XIV e.] Continuation of the citation, yet so that the author 
adduces the two clauses of Hab. ii. 4 in inverted order. For in the O. T. 
passage the words read: éav brooreiAnrat, obk evdoxet 4 Wuxh pov év ait" 6 dé 
Oixaloc éx TioTedc pov [6 dé dikatébc pov éx Tiotewc] CAoerar. The transposition 
is intentional, in order to avoid the supplying of the subject 6 épyéuevo¢ to 
brooreiAnrat.—o dé dixatég pov éx riotewe Choerac] my (of God, not of Christ : 
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriterbr. p. 621, Obs.) righteous one (the devout man 
belonging to me), however, shall live by faith. é« miotewc, namely, is, in 
the sense of the author of the epistle, to be referred to Cjoera. To con- 
join it here, too, as Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11, with dixaoc (So Baumgarten, 
Schulz, BGhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stengel, al.), is inadmissible, because, accord- 
ing to the connection, the design is not to state by what any one becomes 
dixacoc, but by what he will obtain the érayyedia, or, what is the same 
thing, the (#7 aidévioc. The notion of the riorce here closely attaches 
itself to the Hebrew 13138. The meaning, in harmony with the concep- 
tion prevailing elsewhere in the Epistle to the Hebrews, divergent from 
that of Paul, is the believing, faithfully enduring trust in God and His pro- 
mises. The second member, cai éav trooreiAynrac x.7.A., has been mis- 
understood by the LXX. In the Hebrew: 13 Wd MIWA m3) nan 
behold, lifted up, not upright is his (sc. the Chaldean’s) soul in him.—éay 
brootetAntat| if so be that he with faint heart draws back. Comp. Gal. ii. 
12. Inthe application : if he becomes lukewarm in Christianity, and apos- 
tatizes from the same. imooreiAnrac does not stand impersonally ; nor 
have we, with Grotius, Maier, and others, to supply tic, or, with de Wette, 
Winer, p. 487 [E. T. 523] (less decidedly, 5th ed. p. 427), and Buttmann, 
p. 117 [E. T. 134], to supplement from the foregoing 4 diac the general 
idea avbpwroc as subject. The subject is still the foregoing 6 dixaré¢ pov. 
This is, moreover, placed beyond doubt, since dixavoc above is not to be 
taken in the narrower Pauline sense, but in the general sense of the de- 
vout man; he, however, who is in this sense dixasoc, ceases by the iroorés- 

42 


658 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


aeodar to be a dikaoc.—7 wux# yov] wov has reference to God, not to Christ 
(Oecumenius, as likewise, but with hesitation, Theophylact, as more re- 
cently Riehm, /. ¢.), still less to the author of the epistle (Calvin: perinde 
accipiendum est, ac si ex suo sensu apostolus proferret hane sententiam. 
Neque enim i!li propositum fuit exacte recitare prophetae verba, sed dun- 
taxat locum notare, ut ad propriorem intuitum invitaret lectores). 

Ver. 39. The author expresses his confidence that the readers and him- 
self belong not to the class of men who, because they draw back from 
Christianity out of cowardly misgiving, fall a prey to destruction, but 
rather to the class of those who do not grow weary in the Christian faith, 
and therefore attain to life. This expression of confidence is in its essence 
an admonition, and indeed a more urgent one than though the direct form 
of exhortation had been chosen.—To éopvév Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, 
Heinrichs, and many others erroneously supplement réxva or vioi. For 
eat, With the mere genitive, is a well-known genuinely Greek manner of 
expressing a relation of pertaining to a thing,'—ei¢ atoAevav . . . eig TEpt- 
roiyow Conc] Corroborative allusion to the result of the two opposite lines 
of action—az7 6”Aeva is everlasting perdition, and repimoinorg Wuyge 
(comp. 1 Thess. v.9; et¢ teperoinow cwrnpiac) gaining of the soul, i. e. ever- 
lasting life and everlasting blessedness. Wrongly Ebrard: of the bodily de- 
liverance from the judgment impending over Jerusalem, is the discourse 
to be understood.—¥vy4c, moreover, belongs simply to meputoinow, not 
already, as BOhme and Hofmann will have it, to a7éeav, since only zepi- 
roi., not also a72., stood in need of an addition. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LXX. Vv. 1-18. 


(a) These verses state, once more, in a recapitulatory or summary way, the 
thoughts which have been already set forth in chs. viii. ix., (see Note LXV a). 
The development of the passage is as follows:—1l. The legal system, with its 
offerings, was unable to accomplish the end in view, ver. 1. This is proved, (x) 
because; if the end had been accomplished and the conscience of the worshipers 
had been purified, the offerings would have ceased, instead of being repeated con- 
tinually, vv. 2, 3, and (y) because offerings, like those of the law, are, in their very 
nature, inadequate to the actual removal of sin, ver. 4.—2. Christ, by His volun- 
tary offering of Himself in obedience to God’s will, has accomplished and secured 
the sanctification of His people, vv. 5-10.—3. Having thus offered Himself as a 
sacrifice, He has taken His seat at the right hand of God—not presenting in the 
heavenly sanctuary repeated offerings, like the Levitical priesthood, but the one * 
offering once for all—and He there waits for the final and glorious consummation, 
vv. 11-14—4. And all this is divinely indicated in the passage from the prophecy 
of Jeremiah respecting the new covenant, which was ‘cited in the eighth chapter, 
vy. 15-18. These eighteen verses, accordingly, bring out once more the superiority 
ef Christ, as High-priest of a higher sanctuary, wv. 11 ff., in connection with the new 


1See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 165; Kihner, II. p. 167. 


NOTES. 659 


and better covenant, vv. 15 ff., to the Levitical priesthood as related to the system 
to which they belonged, vv. 5 ff. comp. with vy. 2 ff. 

(6) As to the individual words and phrases of this passage, the following points 
may be noticed :—1. The connection of ver. 1 with what precedes by yap is by 
way of proof of the main suggestion of ix. 24-28, that Christ needed to appear with 
the one offering of His own blood. This was necessary because the law, ete.— 
2. The law is presented as having the oxd, instead of the cixév, of the dyafa 
uéAdovta, The ayata themselves are in heaven; the eixév, or exact representation 
of them, is in the Gospel; the oxvd, or mere outline or foreshadowing, is found in 
the Law-system.—3. Tisch. 8, Alf, A. R. V. agree with Liinem. in reading 
dovara; R. V. Treg. W. & H. read divavta:, The remark of Tisch., that the 
writer nowhere speaks of the priests as unable to make the worshipers perfect, 
but only of the law or sacrifices (as in ver. 11), suggests a strong reason for beliey- 
ing divara: to be the true reading; and when the peculiar break in the sequence 
of the sentence is considered, as well as the ease with which an error of a 
copyist might have introduced the plural, it must be regarded as probable that 
the singular is what the author actually wrote-—4. That oi« of ver. 2 is to be 
adopted as the correct text, is proved by the external evidence. That, if this text 
is accepted, the sentence is interrogative, is hardly to be doubted ; for, in opposi- 
tion to the other rendering: “otherwise their presentation would not have 
ceased,” it may not only be urged that, inasmuch as the Levitical system was still 
continuing at the date of the Epistle, it could not be alluded to as if it had 
actually passed away (see Liinem.’s note), but also that the point of the author's ar- 
gument, in this part of it, is that the sacrifices of that system which is able to accom- 
plish its end will (not be ever repeated, but) cease —5. a424 of ver. 3 is equivalent to 
whereas, on the other hand.—6. The second point in the development of the thought 
is introduced (vv. 5 ff.) by an O. T. passage (Ps. xl. 6-8), in which the peculiarity 
of the new system, in its contrast with the old, is set forth. Here, again, as so 
frequently elsewhere, the writer takes pains to base his argument on the words of 
the O. T.—7. There can be no doubt, as Liinem. says, that the selection of this 
particular passage is due to the presence of the word o@a in it, as found in the 
LXX.—a word which served the author’s purpose in a most satisfactory way, 
see ver. 10.—8. As to the word céua, its origin in the LXX. may, perhaps, be 
accounted for correctly by Liinem.’s supposition of a copyist’s error for t/a, or it 
may have been due to the interpretation given by the Sept. translators to a 
different text of the Hebrew, or, possibly, to a free expression on their part of what 
they believed to be the meaning of the original—a mode of setting forth the idea 
of willing obedience. Whatever may be the true explanation of this point, it will - 
be observed by the careful reader, (x) that the use of the word which the writer 
of the epistle makes is only secondary to the expression of his main thought— 
that of obedience to the will of God; (y) that, in his repetition of the words of 
the Psalm in ver. 7, he does not introduce caua; and (z) that, even when he does 
mention it again, in ver. 10, it is only in a subordinate way, 01a Tov capuaroc, while 
the #éAjua is the sphere in which the sanctification of Christians takes place.— 
9. Aéywv and eipyxev of ver. 8 are to be explained as connected with the pro- 
positional and permanent character of the sentence, which the writer desires to 
give to it in his application to the subject in discussion. He explains by the use 
of Aéywr, as in év TO. Aéyewy Viii. 13, and év 76 Aéyeobas, iii. 15.—10. Ka? Auépav 
is to be explained asin vii. 27—the high-priest being at the head of the priest- 


660 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


hood, all that is done in the priestly service is spoken of as if done by him, 
Where a distinction between him and the other priests is a matter of importance, 
as in ix. 6, 7, it is clearly presented, but, in cases like the present, it is of no con- 
sequence.—11. The supposed discrepancy between the statement of ver. 13 and 1 
Cor. xv. 22-28 (see Liinem.’s note) has no real foundation in fact, for the thought, 
both of this writer and of Paul, is that Christ is to hold His position as head of 
the Messianic work and kingdom until all enemies shall have been subdued. 
Paul expresses this by the word Paovdebew; this writer, by éxadicev év defi Tov 
veov. The only difference between the two is, that this author does not refer to 
the Parousia, which he has no occasion to mention. Paul makes the end follow 
immediately after the Parousia and the resurrection which then takes place, (or, 
to say the least, he may be understood in this way), and he makes physical death, 
which ceases with the resurrection, the last enemy that is subdued.—12. It is 
worthy of notice that, at the end of this section, ver. 13, as at its beginning, viii. 
1, the author presents Christ as having sat down at the right hand of God— 
recalling thus, with characteristic rhetorical art, the words of i. 3. 


LXXI. Vv. 19 


With the 19th verse the hortatory passage which belongs to the last section of 
the argument, viii. 1—x. 18, is introduced. As in connection with each previous 
section the general exhortation of the epistle is given, so here it is added once 
more, and is based upon what has been stated in these last preceding chapters. 
ovv of ver. 19, goes back in its force only to viii. 1, and not, as Liinem. says, to 
v. 1. This hortatory passage extends as far as xii. 29. The view, therefore, 
that there is here the beginning of a Practical section of the Epistle, which has 
a parallelism with the whole Doctrinal section, after the manner of the Pauline 
Epistles, and the view that from x. 19 to xiii. 25 we have a third main division 
of the epistle (so Alf.) having reference to “ our duty in the interval of waiting 
between the beginning and accomplishment of our salvation,” or a fifth division 
(so Ebr.) “the laying hold of the N. T. salvation,” are erroneous and involve a 
misconception of the author’s plan. 

That this horéatory passage is connected with viii. 1—x. 18, as that which is 
found ii. J—-4 is connected with i. 4-14, and iii. 1 with ii. 5-16, and, again, vi. 
1-20 with vii. 1-28, is made evident by the fact that the language here employed 
and the thought presented are wholly in the line of what has been set forth since 
the beginning of the eighth chapter—see, for example, the expressions “to enter 
into the holy place,” “the blood of Jesus,” “the way which he inaugurated for us, 
a new and living way,” “through the veil, that is to say, his flesh,” “having our 
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” That it extends to the end of the 
twelfth chapter, is indicated (1) by the fact that, in the final and climactic passage 
of that chapter (xii. 18-24), which contrasts the Christian and Mosaic systems, the ° 
idea of Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant, and of the blood of sprinkling, 
is given the position of greatest emphasis ; and (2) by the fact that there is a 
steady and closely-connected development of thought throughout the entire 
passage, according to which everything is subordinate to, and grows out of, the 
direct exhortation x. 19-25. 

The development of thought, x. 19—xii. 29 is as follows:—l1. The general 
exhortation of the epistle is given (as founded upon the last section of the argu- 


NOTES. | 661 


ment, viii. 1-x. 18) in a positive form—to stand fast, x. 19-25. 2. This exhorta- 
tion, as thus given, is pressed upon the readers by two considerations: (x) the 
danger and punishment which will follow in case they do not hold fast to their 
confession, x. 26-31, and (y) the encouragement which they might derive from 
calling to remembrance the stedfastness of their earlier Christian life, x. 32-34. 
3. The exhortation is repeated, but now in a negative form—not to fall away, x. 39. 
4. This exhortation is founded upon two reasons: (x) the necessity of stedfast 
endurance, in order to the attainment of the reward, x. 36; and (y) the fact that 
this endurance is demanded only for a brief period, before the end shall come, 
x. 37. The immediate connection of all the verses with 19 ff, is clearly manifest. 
With x. 38 begins a new thought, but yet evidently in the same line of subordina- 
tion to 19 ff—5. The stedfast endurance, involved in holding fast and not falling 
away, must be in the line of faith, x. 38, 39. This is proved by the statement of 
what faith is, xi.1, and the citation of a long list of examples from the O. T. and 
Jewish history, which show how the stedfastness of the ancient heroes had been 
in the line of faith, and how those heroes had thereby gained their honorable 
fame and reward, xi. 2-40.—6. In view of the fact that this multitude of witnesses 
are, as it were, looking, as spectators in a race-course, upon us in our Christian 
life, the exhortation to press on with stedfast endurance is again presented—and 
now with a pointing to Jesus, as the head of the great company of the saints, xii. 
1, 2—7. This repeated exhortation is, again—in its turn—based upon two 
grounds :—(x) the fact that the readers have not yet been called to such sufferings, 
in their course, as had come upon some of the O. T. heroes, and upon Jesus, xii. 
3,4; and (y) the fact that, in calling His people to endure afflictions and trials 
with stedfastness, God is dealing with them in love, as a father treats his children, 
xii. 5-11.—8. In view of this, the readers are urged to remove all hindrances to 
stedfast endurance, in the ease of all members of their church :—to lift up the 
hands that hang down, etc., and make straight paths, that the lame may not be 
turned out of the way, xii. 12, 13; to follow after peace and sanctification, xii. 14; 
and to see to it that there be among them no one falling back from the grace of 
God, no one who shall, as a root of bitterness, cause trouble and defilement, and no 
one who shall sell his birth-right for nothing, as did Esau, xii. 15-17.—9. An 
encouragement is given to hold fast the Christian confession, instead of falling 
away, which is founded upon the nature of the new system—it is a system of hope 
and love, not of terrors; of immediate and free access to God and communion 
with Him; of spiritual and heavenly life; and a system which involves the 
noblest sacrifice and a new and better covenant, xii. 18-24—10. In view of this 
character of the Christian revelation, as thus presented in its contrast with the 
Mosaic, and in its encouraging influence towards stedfastness, the writer closes 
with the solemn warning to his readers not to turn away from it, lest they should 
meet with sorer punishment than those who had rejected the Mosaic law, xii. 
25-29. 

The progress of the thought from the beginning of the passage to the end, 
therefore, proves that it is all connected with x. 19 ff.; that it is, as it were, all 
dependent on the odv of x. 19, and thus founded upon viii. 1—x. 18; and that it 
is the hortatory addition to this last section of the epistle. The artistic character 
of the plan which the author adopted is thus clearly seen, as it is traced from the 
earliest to the latest chapter; and its fundamental difference from any plas 
which Paul follows, in any of his epistles, is most conspicuous. 


662 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


LXXII. Vv. 19-25. 


(a) obv of ver. 19 points back immediately to the recapitulatory passage, vv. 
1-18, but more remotely to that which is only presented in a summary way in these 
verses—namely to viii. 1—ix. 28.—(b) The view of Liinem., with respect to 7, that 
it refers to cicodov, and with respect to aca, that it designates the way as living 
in its efficacy, leading to the goal of everlasting life, and thus its contrast to the 
inefficaciousness of the entrance into the earthly sanctuary, is to be adopted. 
Christ “dedicated” (R. V.), or inaugurated this entrance way, by first passing 
through it. He passed through it by dying—the veil of his flesh was rent at that 
time and by that means, and the way was thus opened for free access to God.— 
(c) That oixov rod Yeov refers to heaven, not to the church or to heaven and 
the church on earth, is indicated by the manifest connection of all the other 
words and phrases, in these verses, with the priesthood of Christ in the higher 
sanctuary, and not, as in iii. 6, with His sonship and His presiding in the church. 
—(d) On zAnpogopia comp. note LIX. g above.—(e) R. V., in the text, joins the 
words: “and our body washed with pure water” (ver. 22) with the preceding 
words, making them qualify the verb zpocepyoueta. In the margin, it unites 
them with xatéyouev of ver. 28. A.R. VY. adopts the opposite course. The reasons 
for believing that R. V. text gives the author’s thought correctly are: 1. that it 
joins faith and baptism in the manner which is common in the N.T., making the 
latter the outward symbol of the inward state; 2. that the other connection gives 
to baptism an undue emphasis, placing the words referring to it before xatéyouev, 
while, in both the preceding and following clauses, the corresponding participial or 
defining words follow after the verb. Such an emphasis seems quite improbable, 
and is certainly uncalled for, so far as any suggestion of the context is concerned ; 
3. that the washing of baptism as symbolizing the inward cleansing has a close 
relation in thought to worshiping God with a sincere heart, but no such relation 
to holding fast our hope. The view of Liinemann with respect to this point is to 
be rejected.—(f) Vv. 24, 25 add to what is said of the subjective condition of the 
persons addressed an exhortation to incite one another. For this end, they were 
not to forsake their Christian assemblies. Tapaxadovytec seems to be a general 
word, not limited, as Liinem. takes it, to the animating one another to the unin- 
terrupted frequenting of the Christian meetings.’ Rather, in the Christian meet- 
ings, which they were not to forsake, they should animate one another to love and 
the other Christian virtues—(g) That 77» 7juépav means, not the time of the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, but the day of the Lord’s coming, is proved by the usage 
of the N. T. writers. That the sentence is most naturally interpreted as implying 
an expectation that that day would come soon, can hardly be questioned. That it 
must be so interpreted, however, is, perhaps, not to be affirmed. 


LXXIII. Vv. 26-81. 


(a) The correspondence in thought between this passage and vi. 4 ff. is striking, 
and each of the two may serve to explain the other. Comp. Note LVIII above. 
1. There is the same indication here as in ch. vi., that the persons referred to are 
those who had really entered the Christian life. 2. The turning away is here 
more distinctly described as a voluntary thing. 3. The result mentioned is, not 


NOTES. 663 


that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, but that they will find 
no other way of access opened—there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins. 4. 
Stronger language is used here in describing the sin, than in ch. vi., but the 
connection of this passage with the context and the light which the two passages 
throw upon each other seem to imply that the expressions are intended to set forth 
what apostasy actually is and involves, rather than any deadly or heaven-daring 
opposition to Christ, such as the Pharisees exhibited when they said that He cast 
out the demons through Beelzebub. 

(6) The comparison with regard to penalty which is made in vy. 28 ff. and the 
words of ver. 31 are strikingly similar to what is found in xii. 25 and 29. This 
fact is, in itself, an indication that the entire passage x. 19—xii. 29 is intended by 
the writer to develop one line of thought. 


LXXIV. Vv. 32-39. 


(a) In the grammatical connection and the progress of the thought from sen- 
tence to sentence, dé (ver. 32) may be regarded as serving the same purpose as Jé 
of vi. 9—that is, contrasting the hopeful element in the condition of the readers 
with the hopeless state of those who have just been mentioned. There can be little 
doubt, however, that in the main development of the thought, vv. 32-34 give a 
ground for the exhortation to hold fast, or not to apostatize.—(b) The reference to 
the past career of the reader-, in ch. vi., calls to mind their love and ministering to 
the saints; here, it suggests persecutions and sufferings which they had endured. 
But, in both cases alike, the words used imply a feeling on their part of sympathy 
towards their fellow-believers.—(c) As to the first of the two principal text-variations, 
in ver. 34, the critical editors and commentators are now generally agreed, that roi¢ 
deauiolg is to be read, instead of toi¢ decuoic wov, The grounds for the acceptance 
of deopiore are set forth by Liinem., in his textual note on this verse. It is not 
improbable that this is the correct reading, but the Sin. MS. adds much to the 
weight of the evidence on the other side. In view of this fact, and of the fact that, 
while the connection of Paul’s name with the Epistle may have been a motive to 
introduce the reading decpot¢ ov, it is possible, on the other hand, that the allusion 
to prisoners in xiii. 3 occasioned the introduction of decpiovc, it seems questionable 
whether the former reading can be so decisively set aside, without any recognition 
of its claims, as it is by some writers and by R. V.(d) The second variation is be- 
tween éavTov¢ and éavtoic ;—for év éavroic of T. R. has no sufficient claims to be 
considered. éavtov¢ is adopted by Tisch. 8, Treg., W. & H., R. V. text, A. R.V. 
marg., and others, and seems to have the greater external authority. éavtoic, how- 
ever, is read by Griesb., Alf. A. R. V. text, R. V. marg., and others. If the accusa- 
tive is accepted as the true reading, the explanation given of the meaning of the 
clause by A. R. V. marg: “ye have your own selves for a better possession,” is to 
be preferred to that of R. V. text: “ye yourselves have a better possession.” 
Bleek, who adopts éavrodc, agrees with R. V. text. é obpavoic inserted by T.R., 
with some authorities, after izapgwv is undoubtedly to be rejected. 

(e) Ver. 38 is a part of the same citation with ver. 37, and ver. 39 expresses the 
writer’s belief that his readers are not among those referred to in the passage as 
drawing back. The verses are thus closely related to those which precede. But 
evidently they form a connecting link with ch. xi., and in the development of the 
main thought they hold the place mentioned in note LX XI. 


664 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


CHAPTER XI. 


VER. 3. 7 éx datvouévor] Instead thereof there is read in the Peshito: ex 
illis, quae non cernuntur; in the Vulgate: ex invisibilibus; in Lat. D E: ex non 
apparentibus. These translations, however, are a mere interpretative gloss, from 
which the actual existence of an early reading: é« uy @acvouévwr, cannot at 
all be inferred.—The preference to the Recepta: 74 BAem6meva, is merited by 
the reading 76 BAewoOuevov, commended to attention by Griesbach, adopted by 
Lachm., Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, approved also by de Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch, 
and others. To be preferred partly on account of the better attestation by means 
of A D* E* &, 17, It. Copt. Clem. Didym. Ath. Cyr. al., partly because a muta- 
tion from the singular into the plural was more naturally suggested than the 
opposite.—Ver. 4. Elz.: waptupovvtog Eri toi¢g dGporce avtow Tow Beodv, 
Instead of this, A D* 8* 17 have: waptupovvtoc éxi roicg Sépore avrow 
7 Ge@. Adopted by Lachm. But the thought: “in that Abel, in regard to 
his offerings, gave testimony to God,” would be unintelligible, and, moreover, incor- 
rectly and unhappily expressed. Besides, since aptupodvroc x.7.2. is the unmis- 
takable nearer definition to éuaprup#iy, the context naturally points to God as the 
subject in paprupovytoc. Beyond doubt, therefore, 7@ 4¢@ arose only from the 
eye of the copyist wandering to the T@ @e6 at the beginning of the verse—In 
place of the Recepta 2a/¢eitat, Griesbach (who, however, attaches equal value 
to the Recepta), Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche rightly 
read Aa/ci. In favor of this is decisive, on the one hand, the important author- 
ity of A &, 17, 23, 31, 39, al. mult., Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Armen. Slay. rec. Vulg. 
Clem. Orig. Athan. Nyss. Chrys. (in comment.) Epiphan. Austerius, Damase. 
Chron. alex. Theodoret (in textu), Photius ms. Oecum. Theophyl., on the other 
hand, the usus lo %. For neither in taking 4a/eitaz in the middle sense, 
with Beza, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Carpzov, Baumgarten, nor yet in the passive: prae- 
dicatur, laudatur, in omnium ore est, with Jos. Scaliger, Lud. de Dieu, Wetstein, 
Heinrichs, Stengel, should we be warranted on linguistic grounds; quite apart 
from the fact that, in the latter acceptation, the statentent would be a very trivial 
one.---Ver. 5. Elz.: evpicxeto. Better attested, however (by A D E 8, 109, 
-Epiphan.), is the form yipioxeto, which is found likewise in the LXX. Gen. v. 
24, in the Cod. Alex. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford—In 
place of the Recepta: tij¢ petabécews avtov, we have to write, with Lachm. 
Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, after A D* & 17, 67** 80, 
Vulg. It. Copt., merely: t7¢ “etabécews, and in place of the received form 
evn peotykévat, with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, and Alford, the form 
better attested (by A K L, 46, 71, 73, al., Theophyl.): evapectyxévat—yver. 8. 
Elz.: kadaoviuevoc. But A D (E?) Vulg. It. Arm. Theodoret, Jer. Bed. have 6 
kahdotuevoc. Approved by Mill. Rightly placed in the text by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 1—The article 7¢év, inserted in the Recepta before t tov, we have, with 
Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford, after A D* &*, to delete; and, after 


CHAP. XI. 665 


A D* K, many min. Chrys. Damase. Theophyl., with Laehm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, 
and Alford, to write éweAAev in place of the Recep }ueAdre—Ver. 9. Kat 
rap@xyoev, which D* E, together with their Latin translation, furnish in place 
of the Recepta: tioter rapykyoev, isa later corruption, inasmuch as in ver. 
9a fresh evidence is given of the tiore of Abraham.—ei¢ y7v] Elz.: ei¢ trav 
ya#v. But the article is wanting in A D** K L ®&, very many cursives, with 
Damase. and Oecum. It is suspected by Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. 
Bleek, Tiseh. Alford.—Ver. 11. kai xapa xarpov jAckiag] Elz.: cai rapa kacpov 
qacxiacg étekev, But étexev isa later gloss, which is condemned by A D* ®* 
17, Vuig. It. Copt. Sah. Aeth. utr. Chrys. (codd.). It was already regarded as 
spurious by Beza, Grotius, Mill (Prolegg. 1355), Bengel; and is rightly deleted by 
Griesbach, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others—Ver. 12. 
In place of the Recepta éyevv76yeav, Lachm. Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford read 
éyevyGyoav, which, on account of the stronger attestation by A D* K, 109, 219* 
al. (Vulg. It.: orti sunt), is to be preferred—oc¢ 7 duoc] So already the Editt. 
Complut. and Steph. 2, then Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, 
Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. Elz.: ooei dupoc. 
Against A D (* and ** and ***)! E K L y, 23,37, 46, 47, al. mult., Chrys. (codd.) 
Damase. Oecum. Theophyl.--% apa 76 yeidoc] is wanting in D* E, in their 
Latin translation, and in Aeth. utr. The origin of the omission is to be traced 
back to a mere error in writing, to which the resemblance of sound of the closing 
letters in ayuoc and yeiAoc gave occasion.—Ver. 13. In place of the Recepta “7 
AaBdovrec, Lachm. reads “7 tpoodegauevor, But the Recepta is supported by 
the considerable authority of D E K L &*** almost all the cursives, Theodoret, 
and others; while the reading of Lachm., probably arising from ver. 35, has only 
the testimony of A in its favor, and is devoid of meaning. For tpoodefamevor 
could, in accordance with the usage prevailing elsewhere, only signify either the 
subjective having expected (having awaited), or the subjective having admitted. But 
neither of these meanings would be compatible with the statement of ver. 13, 
which would be suitably expressed only if tpoodefauevoe could be explained of 
the objective having received, what is never denoted by this verb. The reading 7 
Koutoadmevor in &* some cursives (17, 23* 39, al.), and, with Chrys. (in comment.) 
Damase. Theophyl. (adopted by Tisch. 8), was only called forth by the similar 
turn x. 36, xi. 39.—idévrec] Elz.: idéute¢ kai wecodévrec, But the addition 
kat mecodévrec has almost all the witnesses (also 8) against it. It is found in 
only two or three cursives, and is an explanatory gloss to aovacduevor. Comp. 
Chrysostom: ott Teretopévor Foav Tept avTav o¢ Kal aordoacda aitac; Occu- 
menius: kai doracduevor revodévtec—Ver. 15. é£éByoav] Elz. Griesbach (who, 
however, has placed é37cav on the inner margin), Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, 
Bloomfield: ¢&72 ov. Against A D* E* &* 17, 73, 80, Athan. (ed. Bened.; edd. 
al. : é&¢8A73y0av) Chron. alex. Damase.—Ver. 16. viv dé} Elz. Matt. Bloomfield: 
vuvi dé Against decisive witnesses (A D E 8, 44, 48, al. perm., Athan. Chrys. 
Theodoret, Oecum.).—Ver. 19. The Recepta éyeipecv has the support of D E K 
L 8, almost all min. Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damase. al. ; Lachm. and Tisch. 1 
read, after A (eyepe), 17, 71, Cyr. Chron. alex.: éyetpar—Elz.: dvvatéc; A 
D**:; dtivarat, Adopted by Lachm. into the text—Ver. 20. In place of the 
Recepta wioret, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford have adopted miote. Kai, 


1 D* 31: Kadws 


666 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


after A D* 17, 23, 37, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (but not in all mss. and editt.) Thec 
doret, Damasc. Sedul. Bede. Rightly. «ai might appear superfluous, and on 
that account was more likely to be omitted than added.—Ver. 23. Instead of the 
Recepta dtatayua, Lachm, reads dé6yua, But this reading is founded only in a 
conjectural manner upon A, inasmuch as all the letters of the word except the 6 
have been torn away from the Codex. Apart from this, 6é6ya is found only in 
one cursive MS. of the twelfth century (Cod. 34). It is probably a gloss from 
Luke ii. 1.—At the close of ver. 28, D* E (as also their Latin translation, as well 
as three codd. of the Vulgate) further add the words: mote eyac yevouevog pwvonc 
aviAey TOV alyUTTLOV KaTaVvOwY THY TaLWwoLY TwY adeAdwy avTov, as to the spurious- 
ness of which, although Zeger and Mill (Prolegg. 496) held them to be genuine, 
no doubt can exist, even on account of the pyéyac yevduevoc, ver. 24. They are a 
complementary addition in conformity to Acts vii. 23 ff_—Ver. 26. Tov Aiyirrov] 
Elz.: Tov év Aiyorrty. Against DE K L ¥ (also against the later supple- 
menter of B), 31, 44, 46, al plur., Syr. utr. Copt- al., Clem. Euseb. al. Rejected by 
Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, 
al. The tov év Atiyotrrov, adopted by Lachm., after A and some cursives (3, 
71), owes its origin to an uncompleted correction—Ver. 28. Instead of the 
Recepta 6400pevwv, A D E, Damase. have the more correct (dA¢8poc) form 6 e- 
dpevwv, which is rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2,7, and Alford. 
—Ver. 29 Elz. has merely o¢ dca Enpac. But, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 
Delitzsch, and Alford, we have to add y7c, after A D* E 8, 17, 31, 47, al., Chrys. 
Theodoret (cod.) and probably all the versions. Since y7#¢ was no necessary 
addition, it could easily get omitted—Ver. 30. Recepta: étece. But, after A D* 
8, 17, 23, 31, al., Chrys. ms., éteoav (in favor of which, also, recov in 37, 
and Chrys. ms., testifies) is to be looked upon as the original reading. Adopted 
by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. Approved by Delitzsch—vVer. 32. Elz.: 
émctheiper yap we. With Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8, and Alford, after A D* §, we 
have to transpose into: éteAeiper we yap.—tn that which follows, the Recepta 
reads: wept Tedeav Bapdk te kai Sapywpov cai "Llegdde, Aavid re nat 
2ayov7jd.—Instead thereof, Lachm. reads (and so also Tisch. 1 and 8), as it also 
stands in the Coder Sinaiticus: tepi Tede@v Bapak Lauper 'leddade Aaveid 
Te Kai Lapovga, (On internal grounds neither of these forms of the text com- 
mends itself. For, in the case of both, the persons here further mentioned would 
have been enumerated, in contradiction with the mode of proceeding hitherto 
observed, without regard to the chronology ; inasmuch as, historically, Barak was 
to have beén mentioned before Gideon, Jephthah before Samson, Samuel before 
David. And yet the regularity with which each time the second name designates 
a person earlier in a chronological respect, points to an order of succession chosen 
with design. Observe, further, that in the last member, Aavid te kai Lapovsa, 
there is nowhere found a variation with regard to the particles. There can thus 
hardly be room for doubt ‘that the foregoing names also were originally arranged 
in groups of two. It appears, accordingly, the better course to retain the Recepla, 
with the two modifications,—that, with D*, «ai Bapax is read in place of the 
mere Bapdéx; and then, with A, 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Clem. Cyr. Al. Epiphan. 
Ambr. Bede, the mere Lauper is read instead of te Kai Laywov., (The kaé 
before "Iegdae is supported by D E K L, almost all cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. 
Theodoret, Damase. al.) Thus arises the text: tepi Tededv cal. Bapan Yap- 
Wov Kai "Ilegbde, Aavid te kai YSapovgA, and the sense is: “of Gideon as’ 


A 


CHAP. XI. 1. 661 


well as of Barak, of Samson not less than of Jephthah, of David even as of 
Samuel.” In connection with this form of the text, the otherwise very strange 
breach in the chronological order disappears, since the discourse advances histori- 
cally with the addition of each new double member; while, in the double members 
themselves, the mention of the later person before the earlier is justified by the 
mention on each occasion of those who are in point of time contemporaries, as 
also from the consideration of rhetorical eflect.—Ver. 34. After A D* 8, Lachm. 
has adopted wayaipne (and so also Tisch. 7 and 8) instead of the Recepta 
paxaipac, and, after A D* 8*; édvvazadyoay (so also Tisch. 8), in place of 
the Recepta: évedvvawadyoav,—vVer. 35, yuvaixec] Lachm. has, after A D* &*: 
yvvaikac, what, however, rests upon a mere error in transcribing, and is to be 
rejected as meaningless—Ver. 37. “ayaipac] D* &, Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8: 
payaipne.—ver. 38. The Recepta év Epypmiacc is attested by DE K L, min. 
Clem. Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Damasce. al. Lachm. and Tisch. 7 and 8 
read, with A &, 71, 73, 118, Orig. (once) Socrat: €7% épypuiacc, which, however, 
can have arisen only from an error of the copyist—Ver. 39. Elz.: tT v émayye- 
Aiav, <A, 80, Arab. Polygl. Lachm.: tag érayyediac. 


Vv. 1-40.) The author defines the nature of the ziotsc which he requires 
of the readers, and then presents to them in chronological succession 
examples thereof from the days of old. 

Ver. 1. [On ver. 1, see Note LXXV., page 694.] The definition. This 
is no scholastic, exhaustive one, but brings out only that element as the 
essence of the ziotic, with which the author was here alone concerned; 
inasmuch as, according to x. 35 ff., just the inner certainty of conviction 
with regard to the Christian hope, and the stedfast continuance in the 
same dependent thereon, was that which was lacking to the readers. The 
words: foriv 6& miotic éAmiCopévwov iréctaccc, are to be taken 
together as asingle statement, and tpaypudadtov éreyyor ov Breromévov 
forms an apposition to éArCouévav irdotacic: “ faith, however, is a firm 
confidence in regard to that which is hoped for, a being convinced of 
things which are invisible.” TIiotve is accordingly subject ; éArouévev 
bréotacc, as Well as xpaypyatwv éheyyoc ov BAeTtouévwr, predicate; and éorw 
(which, standing at the beginning, is to be accentuated as the verbum sub- 
stantivum, see Kihner, I. p. 72) emphatically preposed copula, with the 
design of attaching to the presupposition, expressed x. 39, of wiotie as a 
quality present in the readers, the statement as to the nature and essence 
of this miore. Quite similar is the use of éorw in the beginning of the 
proposition, 1 Tim. vi. 6: gor dé ropicpuic péyac 4 evoéBeva peta avtapKeiac, 
and Luke viii. 11: égorw 6% aity 4 rapaBor7. Grammatically admissible 
indeed, but to be rejected—because in that case a thought would be 
expressed which is not suggested by the connection, and, moreover, a 
truth in regard to which no contradiction whatever was to be expected on 
the part of the readers—is it when Béhme (as formerly also Winer, 
Gramm., 3d and 4th Ed.; otherwise 5th Ed. p. 70, 6th Ed. p. 56, 7th Ed. p. 


1P. J. L. Huét, De antiquissimorum Dei xi. memorantur, fide diversa eademque una 
cultorum, quiin epistolae ad Hebraeos capite Lugd. Batay. 1824, 8, pp. 27-82, 


668 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


58 f. [E. T.59 f.]) will have éorw taken as a verb substantive, and iréerucce, 
as likewise éAeyyoc, taken as apposition to wioric: “there is, however, a 
faith, a confidence,” ete.—ziori¢] without an article, since the author will 
define the notion of riore in general, not exclusively the notion of speci- 
fically Christian faith—iréoraowe] is by many explained as “ reality” 
(entity, Wesenheit), and placed on a par with oisia, substantia, essentia, and 
the like, which, however, is already proved to be inadmissible from the fact 
that the notion of “ reality ” cannot be immediately applied, but, in order 
to become fitting, must first be changed into that of an “endowing with 
reality,” in such wise that one can then make out the sense: faith clothes 
things which are not yet at all present with a substance or real existence, 
as though they were already present.’—But likewise izéoraove is not to 
be interpreted either by “ fundamentum,”? nor by “placing before one.” 
For neither of the two affords in itself, without further amplification, a 
satisfactory, precise notion, quite apart from the fact that the last-men- 
tioned signification can hardly be supported by the testimony of linguistic 
usage.—The alone correct course is consequently,‘ to take imécraccic, as 
at ili. 14 (vid. ad loc.) as inner confidence —éxGopévorv] gen. objecti: of that 
(or: with regard to that) which is still hoped for, has not yet appeared in an 
actual form. .The main emphasis in the predicate rests upon 22 7ifopévor, 
as also upon the concluding words, corresponding in apposition thereto, 
ov BAetopévwov.—rpaypator | belongs to ov BAerouévov. The conjoining 
with éArfouévev (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Estius, Bbhme, Woerner, and 
others) deprives the two halves of the proposition of their rhythmical 
symmetry.—payydtuv iAeyyoc ob BAerouévwv] a being convinced (in mind or 
heart) of things which are invisible, 7. e. a firm inner persuasion of the exist- 
ence of unseen things, even as though they were manifest to one’s eyes. 
éAeyyoce here expresses not the active notion of the convincing or assuring, 
but, corresponding to the notion of the forementioned izécracie, indicates 
the result of the é2€yyew (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24), as Adyoc that produced by 
the Aégyerv, rirro¢ that effected by the rizrew, etc. Tobe rejected as unsuit- 
able are the explangtions: Proof, argumentum (Vulgate, Ambrose, Schlicht- 
ing, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others); imdiciwum (Erasmus); demonstratio 





1 This mode of interpretation was followed - 


by Chrys., (é7e.d) yap Ta. €v €Amide avuméotata 
éivar Soxei, ) miotis UmdcTacLY avTois yapic- 
eta’ waddAov dé, ov xapigerar GAA’ avTo eat 
ovoia avT@yv’ oiov  avagtacis ov mapayéyovev 
ovdé eotiy ev UmooTageL, GAA’ 7 EATis Uhiatnaw 
auth ev TH HmMETEpa Wux7), Theodoret (Seckvucw 
as UpecT@Ta Ta pydérw yeyevnueva), Oecume~ 
nius (miotts é€otiv avtn yn UTdaTaCts Kal OVGia 
Tav cAmiopevwy mpaynatwy émerdy yap Ta ev 
EAmio avuTéoTata €aTLY ws Téws LH TapdVTa, H 
FloTls ovGlia Tis aVT@Y Kal } UTdCTaCLS yiveTat, 
elvat avTa Kal Tapeivat TpoTOY TLVa TapacKev- 
afovoa dia rou motevev eivar) Theophylact 
(ovotwots TOY LyTw OYTwWY Kal UTOOTAGLS TOV MH 
tudectwétwv), by the Vulgate (substantia), by 
Ambrose, Augustine, Vatablus (rerum, quae 


sperantur, essentia), H.Stephanus (illud, quod 
facit, ut jam exstent, quae sperantur), Schlich- 
ting, Bengel, Heinrichs, Bisping, and others. 

2With Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, Schulz, 
Stein, Stengel, Woerner, and others. 

3 With Castellio (dicitur eorum, qua speran- 
tur, subjectio, quod absentia nobis subjiciat ac 
proponat, efficiatque ut praesentia esse vide- 
antur, nec secus eis assentiamur, quam si 
cerneremus) and Paulus. 

4With Luther, Cameron, Grotius, Wolf, 
Huét, Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Eb 
rard, Bloomfield, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrdebr. p. 702, Alford, Maier, Moll, and 
others. 

5 Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr: des Hebrderbr, 
p. 703; Moll, Hofmann. 


CHAP, Xi. 2,°3; 669 
(Calvin, H. Stephanus, Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Alford, al.) ; apprehensio 
(Clarius); “a certain assurance, guarantee” (Stein), and many others. ov 
BAewoueva, however, on account of the objective negation, combines 
together into the unity of notion “ invisible,” and is a more general char- 
acterization than éAriGéueva, While the latter is restricted to that which 
is purely future, the former comprehends at the same time that which is 
already present, and denotes in general the supra-sensuous and heavenly.} 

Ver. 2. [On Vv. 2, 3, see Note LX XVL., pages 694,695.] Justification of 
the characteristics mentioned, ver. 1, as those that are essential to the 
faith. Just this quality of faith was it by which the Old Testament saints 
were distinguished, and on that account became objects of the divine 
satisfaction and the divine favor—év rairy] not equivalent to dca rabrne 
(Luther, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, 
Bohme, and the majority ; comp. vv. 4, 39), or: ob eam (Wolf and others), 
or touching faith, in point of faith (de Wette, Tholuck, Moll); but: in 
possession of a faith so constituted (Winer, p. 362, [E. T., 387 Note 4], Bleek, 
Bloomfield, Kurtz).—apropeiotar] to obtain a testimony, and that according 
to the connection, a@ good, commendatory testimony, whether by words or 
deeds ’.—oi mpeoBirepor] the ancients (Schulz: the early ancestors), i.e. the fore- 
fathers under the Old Covenant; with the accessory idea of venerableness. 
A like name of honor, as elsewhere (i. 1, al.) oi marépec. 

Ver. 3. [LXXVI 6. ¢.] The author is on the point of proving out the 
truth of ver. 2, in a series of historic instances from the Holy Scriptures 
of the O. T., when the thought forces itself upon him that the very first 
section of that sacred book of Scripture relates a fact of which the reality 
can only be recognized by means of faith. He first of all, therefore, calls 
attention to this fact, before proceeding, in ver. 4, to the designed enumer- 
ation of those historic examples. Certainly not very aptly, since ver. 
3 cannot, as ver. 4 ff, serve in proof of the assertion, ver. 2, 
but, on the contrary, introduces into the examination something 
heterogeneous in relation to ver. 4 ff. For ver. 3 shows only the ne- 
cessity for mioree on our part in regard to a fact belonging to the past 
and recorded in Scripture; ver. 4 ff. there are placed before our eyes as 
models historic persons in whom the virtue of ziorc, so constituted as the 
author demands it of his readers, was livingly present. This judgment, 
that ver.3 forms a heterogeneous insertion, is pronounced, indeed, by 
Delitzsch, to whom Kluge and Moll have acceded, an “unfair one.” But 
the counter observation of Delitzsch: “the author had already at ver. 2, 
in connection with oi zpeoBirepor, and particularly in connection with 
éuaptupydyoav, the O. T. Scripture before his mind; so that the statement, 


1 Calvin : Nobis vita aeterna promittitur, sed 
mortuis; nobis sermo fit de beata resurrecti- 
one, interea putredine sumus obvoluti; justi 
pronuntiamur, et habitat in nobis peeccatum ; 
audimus nos esse beatos, interea obruimur 
infinitis miseriis; promittitur bonorum om- 
nium afHuentia, prolixe vero esurimus et 
sitimus; clamat Deus statim se nobis adfutu- 


rum, sed videtur surdus esse ad clamores 
nostros. Quid fieret, nisi spei inniteremur, 
ac mens nostra praelucente Dei verbo ac 
Spiritu per medias tenebras supra mundum 
emergeret ? 

2Oecumenius: ¢uaptupyonoav ird Oeov com 
PEOTHKEVAL AUTY. 


670 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


although sounding thus personal, is equivalent to the proposition that the 
O. T. Scripture concedes no recognition to any mode of life which lies not 
within the province of faith,’ labors under the defect of logical deliques- 
cence; it is a mere rationalizing of the words of ver. 2, simply and 
clearly preposed as the theme for that which follows.—ziore:] Dat. instru- 
mentalis: by virtue of faith—vooipuev] we discern. voeiv is the inner percep- 
tion, accomplished by means of the voig. Comp. Rom. i. 20.—karypriodar] 
has been prepared (comp. LXX. Ps. lxxiv. 16, lxxxix. 38). More expressive 
than if reroujodac had been written. It represents the having been created 
at the same time as a having been placed in a completed or perfect condition 
[xili. 21].—rovic aidvac] the world; see at i.2—pjuate Seov] by the word (or 
authoritative command) of God. Reference to the repeated: “ And God 
said,’ Gen. i.1 The supposition of Bleek (comp. also Ewald, p. 123), that 
the author here too thought of the word of God as a personified 
property, has nothing in its favor, since the expression is sufficiently ex- 
plained without it. Nor does the dv ov kai éroinoev tove aidvac, i. 2, compel 
us to adopt this supposition. For above the special mode of mediately 
effecting the creation of the world there indicated, stands the higher 
authorship of God, to which the writer here points in general by the 
expression pjuate Yeov.—eic TO py ek davouévov TO BAETduEvoy yeyovévar] NOt: 
30 that, etc.” ei¢ +6 with the infinitive preserves here, too, its ordinary 
telic signification, in that it introduces the purpose of God with regard to 
[LXXVId.] The sense is: that in accord- 
ance with the decree of God, the fact should be averted, that from gawéueva the 
Bderéuevov should have sprung; consequently that the human race should 
from the beginning be directed to the necessity for tiotcc.—p7] belongs 
to the whole object-clause. [LXXVIe.] So rightly Beza, Piscator, Seb. 
Schmidt, Er. Schmid, Bengel, Storr, Schulz, Huet, BGhme, Stuart, Bleek, 
Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
58), Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, M’Caul, and Hofmann; while the 
Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and 
almost all later expositors, including also Stengel and Ebrard (Delitzsch is 
undecided), comprehend uf with é gawouévor, and then interpret this 
in the sense of ék yy gawouévov.s The latter, in favor of which the supposed 
parallels which have been adduced prove nothing, is by reason of the posi- 
tion_of the words (to say. nothing of the fact that ob must have been 
written in place of “74; for neither 2 Cor. iv. 18, as Delitzsch supposes, nor 
Rom. iv. 17, as Maier supposes, decides against this rule. See Meyer ad 
loc.) a grammatical impossibility —ro Bierduevor] that which is seen, or the 
outward, visible world. The singular represents the same as one complex 


the pjuate Kkataptiver Tove aidvac. 


1Comp. 2 Pet. iii.5; LXX. Ps. xxxiii. 6, 
exlviii. 5. Philo de sacrif. Abel. et Cain. p. 
140 D (with Mangey, I. p. 175): ‘O yap @e0s Ae- 
you Gua eroler, wndev petasv audorv Ties. 

2So still Béhme, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, 
Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, 
Woerner, and the majority of recent exposi- 
tors. 


3Calvin alone forms an exception, who 
would have é« blended together with datvo- 
wévwv into a single word, and finds the sense : 
“ut non apparentium fierent visa h. e. spec- 
tacula,” in such wise that the “doctrina” 
harmonizing with that of Rom. i. 20 should 
result: “quod in hoe mundo conspicuam 
habeamus Dei imaginem.” 


CHAP. XI. 4. 671 


whole. 16 BAerduevov resumes under another form only the foregoing rov¢ 
aiavac, Whereas the emphasis in the negative final clause rests upon the 
éxk gacvouévwr, Which is on that account preposed.—¢avdueva] are things 
which appear in outward manifestation, and are perceived by the senses. 
The expression indicates the domain of the corporal, the material, and 
there underlies it the conception that the universe did not spring forth by 
the power of nature from earthly germs or substances, but was created by 
the mere word of God’s omnipotence. In this is contained, it is true, the 
conception of the creating of the world from nothing. [Cf. 2 Mace. vii. 
28.] The opinion of Estius, Schlichting, Limborch, Michaelis, Baum- 
garten, and others, that the author, with a reference to Gen. i. 2 (specially 
after the translation of the LXX.: 7 68 y# qv adpatocg Kai akatackevacToc), 
thought of a visible arising of the worlds out of the invisible chaos already 
existing, has for its presupposition the erroneous transposal of the pj & 
into é« wf, and fails to maintain itself in presence of the fact that the 
yeyovévar éx gawopuévor, as antithesis to the foregoing katypriobar pjuate Feod, 
must receive from this latter its nearer defining of signification. Quite 
untenable is consequently also the opinion of Delitzsch, who, with the 
assent of Kluge and Kurtz, supplements 441’ é« voyrév as opposition to 
py ék dacvonévev, and in connection with the uy dawéueva—or if uA is com- 
bined with the verb, in connection with the tacitly assumed opposite of 
the gavéueva—imagines the author to have thought, in harmony with the 
Philonian doctrine, of the divine ideas, out of which the world is supposed 
to have sprung, in that they were called forth by means of the divine 
word from their seclusion within the Godhead into the outer phenomenal 
reality. See against this also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 59, Obs. 
Ver. 4 [On Vv. 440, see Note LX XVII., pages 695, 696.] The example 
of Abel. Comp. Gen. iv. 3 ff—IIiore:] belongs to the whole statement : 
Tieiova . . . Sem. The conjoining of the same merely with zAeiova (Bisping) 
has against it the analogy of the following instances, and would weaken 
the force of the emphatically preposed iors. The dative, however, 
indicates, as Rom. xi. 20 and frequently, the cause or occasion. See Winer, 
p. 202 f. [E.T.216.] By reason of his faith (or because he had faith) Abel 
offered to God a greater sacrifice than Cain ; i. e. the faith of Abel, which was 
wanting to Cain, was the cause that in the estimation of God Abel’s 
sacrifice had greater value than that of Cain.—zieiova Suoiav] a greater 
sacrifice, namely, in a qualitative respect, thus a better, more excellent one. 
Comp. iii. 3; Matt. vi. 25, xii. 41, 42, al. The quantitative acceptation 
(Valla: plus hostiarwum; Erasmus, Clarius: copiosiorem hostiam ; Zeger : 
abundantiorem] finds no point of support in the narrative of Genesis, and 
would unsuitably accentuate a purely external feature.—zapa Kdiv] is by 
Grotius and others made equivalent to apa tiv tov Kaiv, which is 
admissible, it is true, but not at all necessary. On zapa after the com- 
parative, see at i.4.—dv’ 7 Euaptupydy evar dixavoc] By it he obtained the 
testimony that he was righteous.—dv 7c] sc. tistewc, not Yuvoiac (Cramer). 
For the ziotvc is the main idea in the whole description, and 6’ je 
zuaptupyon manifestly glances back at év ‘ratty éuaptupydyoav, ver. 2.— 


672 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

éuaptupy3y.]| [LXXVII a.] Of whom? Not of Christ, by virtue of the 
declaration Matt. xxiii. 35 (Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Justinian), but 
of God ; as, accordingly, the author himself adds, more nearly defining 
the éuaprupydy: paptrpoovtog ii roig Shporg abtod Tov Seor] in that, namely, 
God gave testimony in respect of his offerings. What is meant is the 
testimony given in the fact that God looked with satisfaction upon Abel 
and his sacrifice (comp. LXX. Gen. iv. 4: kai éreidev 6 Bede én "A Ber 
Kai éxt toi¢ daporg avrov), thus, in point of fact, recognized him as a dixacoc 
(comp. Matt. xxiii. 85: " ABeA tov dixaiov, and 1 John iii. 12).—xai 6? abrije 
arovavav éte Aadei] and by virtue of the same (namely: his faith, not: his 
sacrifice) he yet speaks after his death—azo8avév] is a purely parenthetic 
member: although he has died, and forms with rc 2aAe7 an oxymoron. 
Hardly is it in accordance with the intention of the author to comprehend 
in one adrobavev and dc’ airy. In addition to the ordinary one, this 
explanation also is proposed by Oecumenius, in referring the pronoun 
back to the 8veia by which the violent death of Abel was occasioned; it 
is followed by Bengel, with the difference that he supplements 6’ aizijc 
by riorewc, and will have dd taken in the sense of xara or év.—érc] is not 
the temporal: still, adhuc} so that 2a2e7 would signify: he speaks to us 
of himself and his faith or piety,? or: he summons posterity to the imita- 
tion of his faith.? Rather is érz employed, as Rom. iii. 7 and frequently, 
in the Jogical sense, and serves for the emphasizing of the contrast: “even 
being dead,” or: “notwithstanding he is dead, he nevertheless speaks,” 
while Aa/ez is to be regarded as the more vividly descriptive praesens 
historicum (Winer, p. 250), [E. T. 266] and is to be referred to the thought 
that the shed blood of Abel called to God for vengeance, and God, listen- 
ing to this cry, was concerned about the slain Abel, as though he were 
still living. For manifestly, as appears also from the parallel xii. 24, there 
is an allusion in 2a/¢7 to the words, Gen. iv. 10: gwry aivatec Tov adeAdod 
cov Boa mpbc pe EK THC Yyijc. 

Vv. 5, 6. The example of Enoch. Comp. Gen. v. 21-24.—Tliore: ’ Evy 
peterédy] By reasopof his faith Enoch was caught away; 7.e. even during his 
lifetime was, like Elijah (2 Kings ii.), caught up to God in heaven.t—row 
pa ietv Savarov] not consecutively [so that], de Wette, Bisping, al., but 
indication of the design of God: ‘that he should not see or undergo death 
(comp. Luke ii. 26).—xad oby yipioxero, didte perédnev avrov 6 Sedc] derived 
verbally from the LXX. of Gen. v. 24, as given in the text of the Cod. 
Alex.—rpd yap ... yiverar; ver. 6] It is related in the Scripture concern- 
ing Enoch that he was acceptable to God. But this presupposes that he 
had faith. For to obtain God’s approbation without the possession of 


1Theodoret: wéxpe Tod mapovTos. 

2 Theodoret: 70 dé ére AaAct avTi TOD aoiduos 
EOTL EXPL TOD TapoVTOS Kat TOAVOPUAANTOS Kai 
Tapa TavTwv evpywetTar Tov evoeBov ; Heinsius, 
Bengel: loquitur de se et sui similibus con- 
tra Cainos, al. 

3Chrysostom : 6 yap mapa.v@v Tots addAots b- 
Kalots eivat, Aadec ; Corneliusa Lapide, Valck- 


enaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Bloomfield, and 
others. 

*Comp. Ecclus, xliv. 16: ’Evax evnpéornce 
KUPL® Kal mETETEOH UVTddeEryma LETAVOLas Taic yeE- 
veats; ibid. xlix. 14: ov8é eis exriaOn vlos Evax 
TOLOUTOS ETL THS YS; Kal yap avTos aveAnhOn aro 
Ths yns; Joseph. Antig. 1.3. 4: avexwpnoe mpos 
To Oecov. : 


CHAP Xl 5=7. 673 


faith is impossible.'—rpo r7¢ petadécewe] [LXXVII b.] may be equally 
well conjoined with peyapripyray,? or with ebapeotyxéva.? In the former 
case the sense is: before mention is made in the Scripture of his rapture, 
the testimony is borne to him in the same, that he pleased God.— 
evapeotnkévat] By eimpéotyoev the LXX. translate the Hebrew yam: 
DTNM-AN and he walked with God, 7.e. in communion with God, as His 
most devout worshiper.—Ver. 6 is a truth of wholly universal application, 
so that only éoriv is to be supplemented to ddivarov. With Er. Schmid, 
Limborch, Wetstein, and Schulz, to regard the first hemistich of the verse : 
Xopic dé Tiotewe adbvatov evapectqoal, AS a special statement respecting 
Enoch, is grammatically inadmissible, since in that case Awpic dé riorewe 
adivatov #v avTov evapectioa OY Xwpi¢ dé wictews adivatov avTov evapEoty- 
kévae must have been written.—ebapecrjca] sc. 76 eG, naturally under- 
stood from that which precedes and follows. The infin. aorist expresses, 
as in the case of the immediately succeeding motevoa, the pure verbal 
notion, without regard to the relation of time. See Kihner, IT. p. 80.— 
6 mpooepxouevoc TO Yew] is he who approaches God, sc. to worship Him; 
comp. vil. 25, x. 1. Wrongly; Luther, Calov, Wittich, Rambach, Schulz, 
Ebrard (transl.): he who (as Enoch) will come (or is to come) to God.—ir« 
éorw] that he is, or exists. Arbitrarily importing. Jac. Cappellus: “Series 
sermonis suadet, ut suppleamus 6rz éoriv abrod dedc, i. e. qui accedit ad 
Deum, credere debet eum esse suum Deum.” But also the complement- 
ing the verb by: “that He exists as one to whom man can draw near 
with confidence, as the truly living, personal, almighty, all-wise, all- 
beneficent One” (Bleek), is an unjustifiable act of reading into the text. 
The expression contains only the idea of existence.—kai] still dependent 
upon 671.—wodarodéry¢] reconypenser, sc. for the piety manifested in the 
éxcyteiv avtév (Rom. iii. 11; Acts xv. 17). 

Ver. 7. The example of Noah. Comp. Gen. vi. 8 ff.—Ilicrev] is conjoined 
by Schulz, Stengel, and others with ypyuaticdeic. But Xpnuatioteic forms 
only a subsidiary element for the making up of the historic situation, 
whereas that by which Noah proved himself a model of faith is specified 
by evAaBnbeic Kaxeokebacev. riorer is therefore, as is also done by most, to be 
combined with this last—ypyuatioteice rept tov Hndéxa BAeTouévwr] belongs 
together (against Grotius and Hofmann, who unnaturally construe rep? rav 
pndérxa Brew. With ebAaBySeic): instructed by an utterance of God concerning that 
which was as yet invisible. The choice of the expression was conditioned by 
the definition of ziorzc, laid down ver. 1, and the subjective negation wydéra 
means: concerning the well-known (76,7) events, before these were yet to 
be seen, or their occurrence was to be conjectured. By 7a pndérw Brerd- 
eva, however, is meant not only the impending flood, but also, from the 
use of the plural, the determined destruction of the whole corrupt race 
ofmen. With strange inversion of the sense, even “ipsa «Bwré¢ constru- 


1Chrysostom: mas 8 miorer bmeteTEeOn 0 ?Piscator, Owen, Huét, Bleek, de Wette 
"Evwyx 5 OTe THs weTabecews H evapéaTnats aitia, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hofmann, ai. 
THs dé evapeatycews H Tatts. *Schlichting, Bengel, Maier, and others, 


43 


674 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


enda ” is reckoned by Bohme as belonging to that “ qualem ante nunquam 
vidisse Noachum facile credi potest.” For the ark was surely something 
which was made by Noah himself at the command of God, whereas by ra 
undéxw BAeroueva can be only meant that which, independent of human 
activity, rested in the hands of divine omnipotence alone.—<i/afySeic] in 
devout precaution, in that he reposed unconditional belief in the word of 
God, and on that very account took the enjoined measure of preparation 
in order to remain in safety under the impending destruction. Vatablus, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Schulz, and others explain: in the fear of God. But 
the roy vedv therein to be supplemented (comp. Ecclus. vii. 29; Prov. ii. 
8, xxx. 5; Nah. i. 7) could hardly have been omitted.—v jc] refers not to 
owrnpiar,' nor yet to xBwrdv,? but to riorev,3 as the foregoing main idea; and 
kat THO... KAypovédmog is the second member of the relative clause, 
not, however, as Bisping and Delitzsch think, parallel to the xateoxebacev.— 
6 xécnoc] denotes the unbelieving sinful world of men. This Noah con- 
demned (too weak the rendering of Heinrichs: put to shame) by his faith, 
namely, by the act, in that he set forth the culpability of its conduct by 
the contrast of his own conduct. Comp. xataxpivew, Matt. xii. 41, 42, Luke 
xi. 81, 32, and x«pivew, Rom. i. 27.—kai tHe Kata riot dixawobvag éyéveto 
KAnpovéuoc] [LX XVIIe, d.] Allusion to the fact that Noah is the first who 
in the O. T. is expressly called p'"¥ or dixavoc (Gen. vi. 9).A—7 kara rioriv 
dixaocivn] is the righteousness obtained in accordance with faith, or by the way 
of faith. Since the notion of ziorc¢ is different with the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews from that of Paul, the righteousness of faith here 
spoken of cannot, as is still done by BOhme, Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and 
others, be regarded as identical with the righteousness of faith in the 
Pauline sense. Yet Bleek is perfectly right in saying that the notion: 
righteousness of faith, “here appears as one already formed, and is presup- 
posed as one well known, a fact very easy to be explained from the rela- 
tion in which the author of the epistle stood to Paul.” —xAypovéduor yiveodar] 
denotes no more than to obtain as a possession. We have not, with Jus- 
tinian, Bengel,,Huét, and many, to press the form of expression; as 
though the dicaiocbvy were thought of as actual inheritance, which Noah 
had received as coming down from the fathers, Abel, who in ver. 4 had 
been called dixavoc, and Enoch. 

Vv. 8-10. The example of Abraham. 

Ver. 8. [LX XVII e.] A proof of believing confidence in God it was that 
- Abraham at God’s command wandered forth without knowing whither. 
Comp. Gen. xii. 1, 4; also Acts vii. 2, 3.—é kadobuevoc] is not: “he who is 
called Abraham, whereas, namely, he formerly bore the name of Abram ” 


1 Hunnius, Balduin, Pareus. tan, Wolf, Bengel, and almost all modern 
2Chrysostom: édeéev avtods agiovs svTas expositors. 
KoAdgews, of ye ovde Sia THS KaTacKEVTS ETw- 4Comp. Ezek. xiv. 14, 20; Ecclus. xliy. 17; 


povigovro; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Faber 2 Pet. ii. 5. Philo also, de congressu quaerendae 

Stapulensis, Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, eruditionis gratia, p. 437 B (with Mangey, I. p. 

Grotius, Carpzov, Cramer, Michaelis, Bisping, 532), lays special stress upon this particular: 

al. mpatos 5 obtos Sikatos ev-Tats tepais aveppyOn 
3 Primasius, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Caje- —- ypagats. ’ 


CHAP; XT. 8=10; 675 


(Theodoret, Clarius, Zeger, Bisping, Ewald, al.), which would be a very 
tame addition. It signifies: “Abraham, who was thereto (sc. to the 
éfeAeiv) called or summoned by God.” That this sense could have been 
expressed only by kadotwevoc without the article (Bleek, Delitzsch, Reiche, 
Comm. Crit. p. 108; Maier, Moll, Kurtz), can hardly be maintained. The 
only difference between the two modes of expression is, that with the 
article the xaAsio9a is merely stated as an historic fact ; without the article, 
on the other hand, is at the same time represented as a cause of the iaxobew. 
The participle present, moreover (not «Ay¥eic), is chosen in order to accen- 
tuate the immediate sequence of the kadeioda: and the iaxobew.—eic rérov 
év x.7.A.] namely, to Canaan.—zoi] inexactly used, instead of roi. Comp. 
Winer, p. 439 [E. T, 471].—On the indicative Ep yer a1, see Winer, p. 279 f. 
[E. T. 298]; Buttmann, p. 218 [E. T. 254]. 

Ver. 9. A proof of a believing confidence in God was it further that Abra- 
nam dwelt as a stranger in the land which was promised him asa possession. 
—raporeiv] in classic Greek of dwelling beside or in the neighborhood ; in Hel- 
lenistic, however, ordinarily as here : to dwell as astranger ina land, without 
rights of citizenship or possession. Even in Genesis the sojourning of 
Abraham and his sons in the promised land of Canaan is designated as a 
tapoixeiv, and they themselves are characterized as réporxo: in the same ; 
comp. Gen. xvii. 8, xx. 1, xxi. 23, 34, xxiii. 4, xxiv. 87, xxvi. 3, XXviil. 4, al. 
—eic] receives into the idea of a permanent dwelling that of a previous 
migration. Familiar breviloquence. See Winer, p. 386 [E. T. 414].—dc 
addorpiav] Comp. Acts vil. 5, 6.—év oxyvaic Karouhoac] Theophylact: dep 
Tav sévwv éoTi, TOV GAdotE sig dAAO pépoc peTaBarvdvtwv dia Td bey Exew te idcov. 
Comp. Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3, xviii. 1 ff., xxvi. 25, al.—pera "Ioadx kat Tax 
«.t.4.] which Theophylact, Bengel, Béhme, Kuinoel, Tischendorf, and 
others refer to rapgxycev, belongs, as is shown by the singular é&edéyero 
with which the author continues at ver. 10, to «atovfoac.—Isaac and 
Jacob, however, are called heirs with him of the same promise, because 
the promise was given to Abraham not for himself alone, but at the 
same time for his seed; comp. Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8. 

Ver. 10. Inner motive for the ziore: rapsskyoev, ver. 9. His believing 
expectation was directed not s6 much to earthly possession, as to the pos- 
session of that which was higher and heavenly. His true home he 
thought not to find upon earth, but only in heaven.—rjv rode Geyedioug 
éxovoav 6A] the city which has the foundations, firm and enduring city. The © 
opposite to the tents, which form only a temporary lodging, and may be 
easily broken up and carried away. What is meant is not the earthly Jeru- 
salem (Grotius, Clericus, Dindorf), to which the author, considering the 
excessive attachment of his readers to the earthly city of God and the 
earthly sanctuary, could only have alluded most unsuitably, but the arche- 
type of the same : the heavenly city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, of which 
the possession for the Christians also is as yet something future, since 
they will obtain a dwelling therein only at the epoch of the consummation 
of the Messianic kingdom. The idea of a heavenly Jerusalem was already 
current among the Jews its descent to earth was expected on the arising of 


676 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the Messiah.! From the Jews this conception passed over to the Christians, 
in so far as that which the Jews expected at the first arising of the Messiah 
was placed by the latter in the time of the return of Christ. Comp. further 
vv. 18-16, xii. 22, xiii. 14; Gal. iv. 26; Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2 ff. 10 ff.—je 
rexvitne Kai dnuwovpydc 6 Gedc] of which the designer and artificer (creator) 
is God. dnpcovpyéc in the N. T. only here, as in the O. T. only 2 Macc. 
aval: 

Vv. 11, 12. The example of Sarah. 

Ver. 11. Kai airy appa] even Sarah herself, sc. although she had before 
been unbelieving. At first, namely, when she had received the divine 
promise that she should yet bear a son, she had, in consideration of her 
great age, laughed thereat, and thus manifested unbelief; presently after- 
wards, however, she was afraid, and denied her laughter, had thus passed 
over from unbelief to belief. Comp. Gen. xviii. 12,15. Erroneously is 
the enhancing xai avr# interpreted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, Bengel, BGhme, Stein, Tholuck (the last-named, however, undecided): 
even Sarah also, the wife, or: although she was only a woman; Kurtz: 
“ Sarah herself and no other,” namely, not Hagar. Just as false the inter- 
pretation of Schlichting, Schulz, and others: even Sarah herself, although 
she was barren. To the last mode of supplementing points also the gloss 
oreipa, OY oreipa otoa, OY 7 oTeipa, Which is found, with Theophylact, in 
some cursives, translations (including Vulg.), and early editions. Quite 
wrongly will Delitzsch, followed therein by Alford and Hofmann, have no 
gradation whatever recognized in kai airy Zappa, in that he supposes kai 
avth to serve only for extending a like statement to a second subject, and 
consequently placing the first mother of the chosen race side by side with 
the first father thereof. If the author had wished to express nothing 
more, he would have written merely xa? Zappa. For airé¢ or ait is in 
the N. T. never used in the nominative for the unaccented he or 
she. See Winer, p. 141, Obs. [E. T. 150].—eic¢ karaBorgy onépparoc] 
for the founding of a posterity. «ataBoarg is employed, therefore, in 
the same sense,as in the expression xatafor7y Kéouov, iv. 8, ix. 26, and 
onéppa, as- ver. 18, ii. 16, and frequently. The words cannot denote ; 
she received power to conceive seed, as is interpreted by Chrysostom, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact (who, however, is undecided), the Peshito, Vulgate, 
Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, 
Grotius, L. Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Heinrichs, Huet, Stengel, 
Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, and others. For this must 
have been expressed by cic irodoyiv (abAAnyuv) oxépyatoc.? Constrained 
and unnatural, however, is also the explanation, first mentioned by Theo- 
phylact, and subsequently adopted by Drusius, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, 


1See Schéttgen, de Hieros. coelesti, in his with which, however, more meaning must be 
Hor. Hebr. p. 1205 ff.; Wetstein, NV. T. II. p. put into eis cataBoAyv omépuaros than can Lie 
229 ff.: Ewald, Comm. in Apocal. pp. 11, 307. in the expression, and which has in other re- 
2Michaelis and Storr would therefore, in spects much in the context against it. See 
writing kat avr Zappa, refer the state- Bleek, II. 2, p. 767 f. 
ment, ver. 11, still to Abraham, in connection 


CHAP xa MTs. 677 


Heinsius, Wittich, Rambach, and others: she received power for the bring- 
ing forth of seed.—kai rapa xarpov wckiac] and that contrary to the favorable 
period of life, i.e. since the divayw AauBavew, on account of the youthful 
freshness being already lost, was opposed to all probability. Incorrect, 
because in that case the full signification of kxa:péc (opportunitas) is not 
brought out, Delitzsch : “in contradiction with the time of life, namely, 
the ninetieth year, in which she was.”—érel miordv iyfjoato tov émayyeldd- 
uevov] comp. xX. 23. 

Ver. 12. The wondrous result of the faith displayed by Sarah.—éyev46r- 
cav] sc. through Sarah as mother and ancestress. yiveo@az, of being born, 
usual also elsewhere in classic (Xen. Cyr. i. 2.1, al.) and Hellenistic Greek 
(Rom. i. 3; Gal. iv. 4, al.).—ag’ évéc] from one, namely Abraham. Wrongly 
does Carpzov apprehend évé¢ as a neuter, in that he will have it supple- 
mented by orépuatog or aivaroc. Just as wrongly Zeger: “vel ab uno 
Abrahae et Sarae corpore (juxta illud: Erunt duo in carne una).” !—xat 
taita] and that too, and more than that. According to Winer, p. 153 [E. T. 
162], equivalent to «ai rovro. But the plural is, no doubt, placed because 
the author has in his mind, besides the vevexpwouévov eivac of Abraham, 
also that remarked in ver. 11 with regard to Sarah (her former unbelief 
and her advanced age).—vevexpwuévov] has reference to the dead power of 
generation, as Rom. iv. 19.—Of one were born even as the stars of heaven in 
regard to number, i.e. of one were descendants born innumerable in multi- 
tude as the stars of heaven. A supplementing of éxyovo or avOpwra (so 
still Bleek) is, moreover, unnecessary. The comparison of the multitude 
of descendants to the stars of heaven, and the countless sand upon the 
sea-shore, is based upon the use of the same figures in the words of the 
promise given to Abraham; comp. Gen. xiii. 16, xv. 5, xxii. 17, xxvi. 4, 
xxxil. 12; Ex. xxxii. 13; Deut. i. 10.—yeidoc] for shore occurs also with the 
classics, and that in prose equally (Herod. ii. 94; Polyb. iii. 14. 6, and fre- 
quently) as with the poets (Hom. J/. xii. 52). Comp. also Plin. xxxi. 2: 
Herba in labris fontis virens; Caes. de bello Gall. vii. 72: ut ejus (fossae) 
solum tantundem pateret, quantum summa labra distabant. 

Vy. 13-16. General observations with regard to the forementioned 
patriarchs. 

Ver. 13. Kara riotw] [LX XVII f.] is ordinarily (by Bleek, too, in the 
larger commentary) conjoined exclusively with azé#avov. According to 
this, the dying comformably to faith, in distinction from the faith already 
manifested during life, would become the main idea of the verse, and the 
participial clauses would be made to contain the proof for the xara riotw 
arofaveiv. The sense would be: “they died in faith (not in sight), since 
they had not received the promises, but only saw them from afar,” ete. 
(Bleek). Against this apprehension of the words, however, decides the 
subjective negation “#4 before AaBévrec, instead of which (particularly in 
the case of the opposition following with 4244, see Kiihner, IT. 408) the 


1Comp. already Theodoret: ’Ad’ évds tod ovdx amaptnoducba’ Eaovtar yap, dyciv, oi Sve 
ABpadu ei SE Kai audorepous Eva vojnoarmer, eis Gapka pilav. 


678 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


objective negation ov must have been placed. We have therefore, with 
Schulz, Winer p. 376 [E. T. 403]), Moll, Bleek, Vorles. p. 434, Kurtz, 
Ewald, to refer kara riotw to azxédavov in close comprehension of the 
latter with the participles. The sense is: In accordance with faith these 
ali died without having received the promises, but as those who, ete. ; 7. e3 
it was comformable to the nature of faith that they, without having at- 
tained to the possession of the promised blessings themselves, beheld them 
only from afar and greeted them, and witnessed the confession that they 
are strangers and pilgrims upon earth.—oiro: ravrec] is referred by Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Primasius, Ribera, Justinian, Drusius, and Bloom- 
field to all the before-mentioned persons, from Abel onwards, with the 
single exception of Enoch. Nevertheless, as is evident from the contents 
of the following verse, only those among them can have been thought of 
to whom promises were given, thus Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob. 
Comp. specially ver. 15.—y) AaBdvrec] see at vi. 15.—ra¢ érayyeAiac] in the 
objective sense, as tiv éxayyediav, ix. 15.—rdppobev] belongs equally to 
aoracayevor as tO iddvtec.—dordleoda] joyfully greet or welcome, as the 
traveler the longed-for journey’s end. Comp. Virg. Aen. iii. 522 sqq.: 


Quum procul obsecuros colles humilemque yidemus 
Italiam. . . . Italiam laeto socii clamore salutant. 


—kal édpuoroyhoavrec, bre Eévor Kai raperidnpuol stow éni tic yic| Reference to 
the utterances of the patriarchs in the Book of Genesis, particularly xxiii. 
4, where Abraham says to the children of Heth: répocxoc kai maperidyuoc 
éyo eis we iuov, and xlvii. 9, where Jacob, in addressing Pharaoh, de- 
scribes his own life in general as a pilgrimage: ai juépac tov érov THe Coe 
foov, a¢ TapokO, éExatov TpidKxovta ery} 

Ver. 14 ff. That the patriarchs are févor al raperidyuor, they have them: 
selves confessed ; that they were so éx rye yc, the author has added by 
way of more nearly defining. The legitimacy of this exposition of their 
words he now proves (ver. 14 . . . érovpaviov, ver. 16). By those utter- 
ances the patriarehs declare that they have not already a country, they 
are only seeking it. If, now, they had set their hearts upon an earthly 
country, they would certainly have had time and opportunity enough to 
have returned to that which they had left, but this they did not; they 
must thus have longed for a heavenly country.—éu@avifovew] Theodoret : 
dnAovorv. Oecumenius and Theophylact: deccviovew.—érityreiv] ardently to 
seek or desire something. 

Ver. 15. Kai] and indeed.—pvyyovetew] is taken by the majority in the 
intransitive sense: to be mindful (xiii. 7). More naturally, however, may 
we understand it, with Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, and others, 
transitively : to make mention, sc. in the utterances to which the author has 


1Comp. LXX. Ps. xxxix. 13, exix.19; 1 Pet. Ding. p. 331 © (I. p. 416): Aca rodro ot Kata 
ii. 11; Philo, de Agricult. p. 196 E (with Man- Mwiojv copot mavtes eEiaayovTa TapoLKoUVTEs* 
gey, I. p. 310): mapotxety ob Katoukeiy HAPomED" ai yap TovTwY Wuxal oTéAAOVTAL MEV aToLKiaF 
7® yap OvtTe Taca méev WuxH cohov matpida wéev 6y mote tTHv && ovpavod. 
ovpavov, gevnv Se ynv Edaxev; De Confus. 


CHAP. xi. 14-18. 679 


respect. Comp. ver. 22; 1 Thess. i. 8.—elyov av] they would have had. The 
imperfect of the continuing possibility. 

Ver. 16. Nov dé] the logical: but now. Comp. vill. 6.—épéyeodai tivoc} 
elsewhere in the N. T. only 1 Tim. iii. 1, vi. 10.—0:é6] wherefore, sc. on 
account of their seeking after the heavenly country.—ted¢ émxadreiodac 
aitov] Epexegesis to aitobc: God is not ashamed of them, namely, to be called 
their God. Reference to Ex. ili. 6: kai citer" éyo eis 6 Ved¢ Tov maTpd¢ cov, 
Vede ’ABpadp Kal Fede "Ioadx Kai Gedo "IaxHB. Comp. ibid. vv. 15, 16.—The 
ovK émacoybvetac «.t.A, presupposes the idea of an intimate communion 
of God with the patriarchs. Comp. also Matt. xxii. 31 f.; Mark xii. 26 f.; 
Luke xx. 37 f. The fact instanced in proof of this communion is added 
in the concluding words: jroivacev yap avtoig réAw] for He has prepared 
for thema city. By the +éAcc¢ is again meant, as ver. 10, the heavenly 
Jerusalem. jroiuwacev, however, may equally well signify: He has pre- 
pared it for them, that they may one day possess the same as a dwelling (Schlich- 
ting, Grotius, Owen, Caloy, Bohme, de Wette, Delitzsch, Hofmann), as: He 
has already conferred it wpon them as a possession (so Braun and Bleek). 

Vv. 17-19. The author returns once more specially to Abraham, in that 
he further, by way of addition, dwells on the most distinguished act of 
faith on the part of this patriarch, that he had not refused at God’s behest 
to offer his only son asa sacrifice; comp. Gen. xxii. 1 ff—zpocevgvoxev] not: 
‘he was on the point of offering,” against which stands the perfect. It 
can only signify: he offered (made an offering of). The author could thus 
express himself, since the offering was really intended by Abraham, 
although it afterwards came, it is true, to a bloodless issue. Comp. Jas. il. 
Q1: ’ABpaauw . . . avevéynac "Ioaak tov vidv avtov emi Td YuvovacTHpiov.— 
reppatouevoc] when he was tempted, i.e. was put to the test by God with 
regard to his faith. Comp. Gen. xxii. 1. recpaféuevoc belongs still to 
xpocevivoxev, not, as Hofmann quite unnaturally requires, to tpocégepev.— 
kal Tov povoyery ...omépua, ver. 18] Unfolding of the greatness of the act. 
It was (1) his only son whom he gave up, (2) the son whose life was neces- 
sary, if the promises given to Abraham were to receive their fulfillment.— 
kai] and of a truth.—rov povoyer7] No respect is had to Ishmael, since he 
was not of equal birth, and stood outside of all relation to the divine 
promises.-—pocégepev] here the imperfect; since the author now presents 
to himself, as though he were a spectator, the act of the offering itself— 
6 tac éxayyeAiac avadeEauevoc] he who had believingly embraced the promises. 
With Schulz, Heinrichs, Bengel, Ebrard, Bisping, and others, to find indi- 
cated by avadefduevoc the mere having received, contradicts the ordinary 
use of the word, instead of which 4aBév must have been placed. 

Ver. 18. Ipdc 6v] not: “of whom” (more accurately: “in relation to 
whom,” comp. i. 7), in such wise that it should be referred to Isaac (Faber 
Stapulensis, Luther, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, 
Michaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, and others), but: to whom, sc. Abraham.—ore 
év "Ioadk KAndfoerai co orépua| In Isaac shall a seed be named (called) to 
thee, i.e. through Isaac shall the posterity, whose forefather thou shalt be 
called, be founded. The emphasis falls upon év ’Ioad«, and the citation 


680 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


is from Gen. xxi. 12. 671, however, which has there causal significance, 
the author takes as a recitative. 

Ver. 19 contains in its first half the motive ground of Abraham for such 
believing action. Abraham trusted in the omnipotence of God, by virtue 
of which he is able, even in presence of the actual sacrifice of Isaac, to 
realize the promises given to him.—oyiodyevoc, ore «.7.2.] since he judged 
that God is able to raise even from the dead. The proposition introduced 
with 67e contains a universal truth. It is erroneous to supplement 
aitév to éyeipew (Jac. Cappellus, Huét, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, al.), 
yet more erroneous to supplement ozépua (Schulz, Stengel).—%ovdev x.7.2.] 
Declaration of the divine reward for such believing action and such beliey- 
ing confidence. 6ev means, as everywhere else in our epistle (ii. 17, iii. 
1, vii. 25, viii. 3,.1x. 18): on which account, wherefore; xapaBorn, 
[LX XVII g.] however, denotes, conformably to the well-known use of 
rapaBarAsodac (Hom. Il. ix. 3822; Thue. ii. 44, al. See the lexicons), the 
imperilling, and forms with the éxouzioaro an oxymoron. The sense is: 
on which account he bore him away, even on the ground of (or: by means of) 
the giving up. Abraham obtained Isaac as a reward, received him back 
again as a possession, by the very act of setting his life at stake, giving up 
to the death of a sacrifice. This is the simple and only correct sense of 
the variously explained words.—With this exposition earlier interpreta- 
tions agree in part, though by no means entirely, so far as 60ev and 
éxowioato are concerned, but all different in regard to év rapafody. 
Instead of the causal signification, “on which account,” Calvin, Castellio, 
Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Wolf, Michaelis, Schulz, 
Huét, Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, 
Moll, Ewald, Hofmann, and others have asserted for 63¢ev the local sig- 
nification ‘“ whence, sc. from the dead.” In connection with this, L. Bos, 
Alberti, Schulz, and Stengel [as also Whitby] understand éxoyuicaro of 
the birth of Isaac; while Calvin, Bleek, and the majority rightly under- 
stand it of the deliverance of Isaac’s life in consequence of the prevention 
of the sacrifice. The former explain: whence he indeed had received 
him, inasmuch as*Isaac’s parents at the time of his conception and birth 
were virtually dead. The latter:-as he accordingly also received from the 
dead. But against the first acceptation decides the fact that in such case, 
because an event conceived of as possible in the future is placed in defi- 
nite parallel with a past event, the pluperfect must necessarily have been 
used in place of the aorist éxouioaro; and then, even apart from this, 
since all the emphasis would-fall upon éxouicato, the order of the words 
must have been otherwise, namely as follows: 6¥ev éy rapaBoAqH Kat 
éxouioato avrév. But also the last-named interpretation is forbidden by 
the order of the words. For «ai must, in connection, therewith, be 
referred, as is also expressly required by Schlichting, Bohme, and others, 
to the whole clause, whereas from its position it can only form a grada- 
tion of év mapaBo2m; thus 68ev Kai abtov év rapaBorH éxouicato must have 
been written.—Finally, as regards év cap $o0A%, the signification “in 
similitudine,” or “in a resemblance,” is attached thereto by Theodore of | 


CHAP: XL 19, 681 
Mopsuestia,' Calvin, Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Jac. Cappellus 
(figurate), Scaliger, Er. Schmid, Wittich, Limborch, Zachariae, Dindorf, 
Koppe (in Heinrichs), Huet, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, 
Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, 
Woerner, and others. The sense is, according to Bleek: “as accord- 
ingly he received him from thence in a resemblance; so that Isaac 
was indeed not really delivered out of death, but yet his deliverance was 
a kind of restoration from the dead, since Abraham already regarded him 
as the prey of death.” But this “in a resemblance” is, strictly taken, 
nothing else than “in a manner,” with which it is also exactly identified 
by Stengel and others; for the expression, however, of the notion “in a 
manner,” the author would hardly have chosen the altogether unusual, 
and therefore unintelligible, formula é xapaZo2#; much more natural 
would it have been for him to employ instead thereof, as at vii. 9, the 
familiar o¢ éroc eixeiv. Moreover, since that addition could only be 
designed to exert a softening effect upon the évev (sc. éx vexpov), it must 
also have followed immediately after this word. The author would thus 
have written 69ev, &¢ Exog eixeiv, aitov Kal éxouicato.— Yet more un- 
tenable is the exposition akin to that just mentioned; as a type (Luther : 
zum Vorbilde), sc. in regard to the resurrection in general (Hunnius, Balduin, 
Michaelis, Bohme, al.), or specially in regard to the sacrificed and risen 
Christ (Primasius, Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calov, Carpzov, 
Cramer, Ebrard, Bisping, Reuss), or in regard to both alike (Theodoret: 
Toutéotiy a¢ év ovuBdAw Kal TiTw THE avacTdcewe—éVv aiTa dé mpoeypagn Kat 
Tov owrypiov Tabovg 6 tixoc). For the express indication of that which was 
typically represented by this event could not have been wanting —Equally 
far wrong, because far-fetched and unnatural, is the supplementing of ov 
to év rapafoam on the part of Bengel (“ Abraham . ipse factus est 
parabola . . . Omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrahae, offerentis 
unigenitum ”), and the explanation of Paulus: “against an equalization,” 
7. é. in return for the ram presented as a substitute (comp. already Chrys- 
ostom: tovréotw év brodeiyuatu’ év TH Kp gnow .. . O¢ év aiviyyate’ worTeEp 
yap mapaor7 qv 6 Kpio¢ tov "Icadx).—To the interpretation of év rapaBoAy, 
above regarded as correct, several expositors approach, to the extent of 
likewise thinking that we must make the usage with regard to the verb 
mapapaArecSa Our guide in determining the signification of zapafoA7. 
They deviate, however, essentially from the above interpretation, in that 
they take év rapaZorm adverbially, in the sense of rapa3d4uc¢ ; consequently 
refer the expression, which above was equally referred to subject and 
object, to the subject, and that without any advantage to the peculiarity of 
thought.? 


1TovTo A€yet, 6TL akoAovOws EtvXEV TH EavTOD 
MOTEL” TH Yap avaotacer moTEVoas, Sia cUL- 
Bodwyv Tiv@v amobavévta avtov éxouicato. To 
yap €v moAAy Tov Bavatov mpocdoxia yevouevov 
pydsév mabeiv, Tod adnbGs avaotncomevov cip- 
Bodov jv, dcov Tod Oavatov mpds Bpaxd yevod- 


pevos, avéotn pndev iro Tod Oavatov Tabuv* 
70 youv ev mapaBoAy avti Tod ev cuuBdAots. 
2So Camerarius, who, besides other possi- 
bilities of apprehension, suggests also this: 
in that he exposed himself to danger, namely, 
that of losing his son; Loesner, Krebs, Heine 


682 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

Ver. 20. The example of Isaac. Comp. Gen. xxvii—lTliore: wai] xai is 
the more nearly defining: and in truth, and in sooth. A faith was mani- 
fested in the imparting of the blessing, by the very circumstance that this 
benediction extended with inner confidence to facts as yet belonging to 
the future.1 Comp. Theodoret: 0b yap av rae oby dpwpévac EMuwxev evdoyiac, 
el uy Toig Adyowe axoAovOgoew TO Epyov éxiorevoev.mrepi peAAdvTwr] Concerning 
things as yet future, zi. e. concerning the future lot of his two sons, and the 
pre-eminence of the younger son over the elder.—Jacob, the younger son, 
is here first mentioned, since he was first blessed by Isaac, and was alto- 
gether of greater significance for the history of the people. 

Ver. 21. The conduct of Jacob, Gen. xlviii., analogous to the fact adduced 
ver. 20. Here, too, the blessing related to the future, and in like manner 
as ver. 20, to the pre eminence of the younger son (Ephraim) over the 
elder (Manasseh).—azodvioxwv] when he was dying. Reference to Gen. 
xlvil. 81: idob &@ arodvioKo.—Kai mpocexbvycev emi Td axpov THe paBdov 
aitov] and he worshiped (bowing) upon the top of his staff, i.e. in that from 
weakness he supported himself with his face resting upon the top of his 
staff. Addition from LXX. Gen. xlvii. 81 (inexactly referred to this 
place), for the bringing out of the solemn, devotional frame of Jacob 
in uttering this benediction [the same spirit being breathed in xlix. 18]. 
In the Hebrew the words read: NWBT wNI-Dy Dw INAV (7. e. accord- 
ing to Tuch: “ and Israel leaned back upon the head of the bed; but, more 
correctly, according to Knobel: “ and Israel bowed himself upon the head of 
the couch, inasmuch as he had before, during his conversation with Joseph, 
been sitting upright upon his couch (comp. xlviii. 2), but now leaned for- 
ward to the upper end thereof, and blessed God for the granting of the 
last wish ”). The LXX., however, read the vowels 109, and their trans- 
lation was followed by our author in this passage as elsewhere. Strangely 
does Hofmann perceive in the subordinate particular kai pooexivycev 
«7.4, a “second thing” adduced as proving the faith of Jacob. The 
first is, according to him, Jacob’s last testament, the second his departure 
from life (!).—The supposition that +6 *Iwo4#¢ is to be supplemented to 
Tpooekvvycer,? is, equally, with the view akin thereto, that airod is to be 
referred to ’Iwo#¢, and éri ‘rd dkpov tHE PaBdov airod is to be 
regarded as the object to tpocewtvycev to be rejected as untenable. 
The first-named has against it the fact, that in that which precedes, the 
discourse is not of Joseph himself, but of his sons; the latter, that the 


richs: in summo discrimine, map’ édAmidsa, 
tmapadoéws; Raphel: praeter spem praeterque 
opinionem ; Tholueck: in bold venture. 

1 How Delitazsch has been able so greatly to 
misunderstand the above words as to read in 
them the assertion, that mept pedAAdvtwr is to 
be combined with zwepi cai instead of nvAdyn- 
aev, I do not comprehend. 

2So Chrysostom: rouvtégtt Kai yépwv oy 75 
mpogekiver T@ “lwonh, THY TavTos TOU Aaov 
mpogkirvyna SyA@v Thy ecomerny av’toa; Theo- 


doret, Photius in Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
and others. 

3So the Vulgate: et adoravit fastigium 
virgae ejus; Primasius: virgae ejus i. e. vir- 
gae Jos.: Oecumenius: togodTor .. . emiarevae 
TOLS EGOMEVOLS, OTL Kai mMpogEKUYHGE TH PaBdw, 
Sox@v opav ta éooueva; Clarius, Bisping, 
Reuss: “Jacob, after having received the 
oath of Joseph, bowed (s’inclina) towards the 
head of the latter’s staff, in tcken of submis- 
sion, that is to say, in order solemnly to 


CHAP. XI. 20-23. 683 
making of éxé re a note of object to rpockvveiv is opposed to all the usage 
of the language. 

Ver. 22. The example of Joseph. Comp. Gen. 1. 24, 25. Firm faith, that 
the promise already given to Abraham (Gen. xv. 18-16) should be ful- 
filled, was it that Joseph, when he was near to death, gave direction as to 
that which should be done with his bones at the time of the accomplish- 
ment of that promise.—redevrdv] the same as azodvyoxwv, ver. 21; the 
choice of the expression was called forth by Gen. 1. 26: kai éredeirycev 
"Iwofi¢.—repi] in connection with prvypovevecv, which as at ver. 15 signi- 
fies to make mention, stands instead of the bare genitive, after the analogy 
of pracda epi toc. See Kiihner, II. p. 186, Obs. 1—j é£odog tov vidy 
"Iopay”] the (future) departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt.—épryyus- 
vevoev kai . . . évereiAaro] Form of parallel arrangement ; while, as regards 
the matter itself, the second member as an accessory point is subordinated 
to the first member as the main point. 

Vv. 23-29 the author passes over from the patriarchs to Moses, dwelling 
upon aseries of facts in the history of the latter which bear a typical 
character. First— 

Ver. 23 he points to the faith manifested by the relatives of Moses at 
the time of his birth. Comp. Ex. ii. 2. The special beauty of the new- 
born child awakened in them the belief! that God had chosen him for 
great things and would be able to preserve his life, and in this belief they 
hid the child in opposition to the commandment of the Egyptian king. — 
bro tov zatépwr] i.e. by his parents.2 Bengel understands zarépec of the 
still living ancestors of Moses (“a patribus, id est a patre [Amram] et ab 
avo . paterno, qui erat Kahath”’), and he is followed by Chr. Fr. 
Schmid, BOhme (yet with wavering), and others; while Stein, who ex- 
pressly rejects both explanations, wonderfully supposes “the mother,” 
together with “a few concurring friends, who as it were took the place of 
parents,” to be intended. In the Hebrew, Ex. ii. 2, the xpirrew is predi- 
cated only of the mother; the LXX., however, with whom the author 
agrees, have: éCKéeTacCaV avTd pRvac TpEIC.— 
aoreiov] fair and graceful in form. Theophylact: dpaiov, 7% bwWee yapiev. In 
the Hebrew stands 230 —«ai obx ego BHdnoav 7d didtayya TOV BacAéwc] might, 
on account of the plural oi« édoBy79 car, be considered, together with 
eldov, in Opposition to the passive éxpi7, as still dependent upon ééru. 
But more logically exact is the taking of the words, as also is mostly done, 
as a parallel to éxpi37. For much more natural does it appear that the 
author wished to represent that «pizrew as an act from the accomplish- 
ment of which fear did not deter, than that he should think of fearlessness 


3 a <7 oe eee 
tOdvTec d& avTd aoTeior, 


acknowledge Joseph as head of the family. 
The staff is the symbol of power;” and others. 

1Kurtz is in a position to add further par- 
ticulars on this point, inasmuch as he sup- 
poses the “ presupposition” is to be derived 
from the state of things narrated, “that a 
special divine admonition spoke to the 
parents out of the eyes of the child.” 


2For this elsewhere unusual employment 
of watépes, Wetstein aptly directs the reader 
to Parthenius, EHrot. 10: Kvuavunmos ets ém- 
Ovutav Acvkavyns €AOwv, Tapa ToY TaTépwy 
aiTnoamevos avTny nyayeTo yuvaika, as well as 
to the Latin patres, Stat. Theb. vi. 464: Incer- 
tique patrum thalami. 


684 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


as the motive cause of that action.—rd didraypa tov Baovdéwe] the command 
of Pharaoh, to drown all new-born male children of the Israelites. Comp. 
Ex. 1. 22. 


Vv. 24-26. Progress from the child Moses to the adult Moses. méyac 
yévouevoc, namely, corresponds (comp. Ex. ii. 11) to the yevvydeic, ver. 
23, and uwéyac is to be understood not of worldly power and honor 
(Schulz, Bretschneider), but of being grown up.'—joviaaro RéyeoSar] refused 
or disdained to be called.—S8vyatpéc] not ri¢ Svyarpéc is placed (as Ex. ii. 5 ff.), 
since the author combines Svyarodc with @a0aé into one single (more 
general) notion : of a Pharaoh’s daughter, i.e. of an Egyptian royal princess. 

Ver. 25. Justificatory explanation of the jpvfoaro, ver. 24: in that he 
preferred to suffer evil treatment with the people of God, in place of possessing a 
temporary sinful enjoyment.—parAov aipsiodac 7] in Holy Scripture a drat 
Aeyouevov; in profane literature, on the other hand, of very frequent occur- 
rence. Instances in Wetstein—The compound cvykaxovyeiodac only 
here; the simple form « axkovyeio 3 ac alone (ver. 87, xiii. 8) is found else- 
where.—r@ Aa@ tov deov] see at iv. 9.—rpédcxapov ardAavow] an enjoyment 
only temporary, of brief duration, se. of the earthly joys of life. Contrast 
to the enjoyment of everlasting blessedness.—ayapriac] not genit. objecti 
(Theophylact, Schlichting, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, al.), but genit. auct.: 
Enjoyment, such as (the committing of) sin affords. By duaoria is 
meant apostasy from God, by the abandoning of the communion with the 
people of God. [LXXVII h.] 

Ver. 26. Indication of cause for ver. 25, in such wise that Jyyodmevoc, 
ver. 26, is subordinated to the paAdov éAduevos, ver. 25.—rdv dvediopdy Tov 
Xpiotov] thereproach of Christ. That signifies not: the reproach for Christ's 
sake, which he endured, namely, by virtue of the hope in the Messiah 
(Castellio, Wolf, Carpzov, Béhme, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others). 
For by the mere genitive this notion cannot be expressed. The sense is: 
the reproach, as Christ bore it, inasmuch, namely, as the reproach, which 
Moses took upon him to endure in fellowship with his oppressed people 
at the hand of the Egyptians, was in its nature homogeneous with the 
reproach which Christ afterwards had to endure at the hands of unbe- 
lievers, to the extent that inthe one case as in the other the glory of God 
and the advancement of His kingdom was the end and aim of the endur- 
ing. - Comp. Tov oveWonov- avTov .dépovtec, Xill. 18, and ra radjuata rod 
Xpiorov, 2 Cor. i.5; as also ra torepjuata Tov PAinpewv tov Xpiorov, Col. i 24.— 
anéBherev yap ei¢ tiv jucarodociar] for he looked stedfastly to the bestowal of 
the reward. The determining ground for his action.—a70BAézecv in the 
N. T. only here.—} picdarodocia is the promised heavenly reward, the 
everlasting salvation ; comp. vv. 39,40. Unsuitably does Grotius limit the 
expression to the promised possession of the land of Canaan. 

Ver. 27 [LX XII i.] is referred either to the flight of Moses to Midian 
(Ex. ii. 15), or to the departure of the whole people out of Egypt2 Only 


1Comp. viii. 11; LXX. Gen. xxxviii. 11, 14; 2The former supposition is favored by 
Hom. Od. ii. 314, xviii. 217, xix. 532. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo-: 


CHAP. xI. 24-27, 685 


the opinion first mentioned is the correct one. Against it, indeed, the 
objection appears to be not without weight, that Ex. ii. 14 a ¢oBndjva of 
Moses is spoken of, whereas here, by means of py ¢oB7Seic «.7.2., the 
opposite is asserted. But the contradiction is only an apparent one. For 
in the account of Exodus a fear on the part of Moses is mentioned only in 
the objective relation, whereas the fearlessness, which the author of our 
epistle intends, belongs purely to the subjective domain. Moses was 
alarmed that, contrary to his expectation, the slaying of the Egyptian had 
already become known, and apprehended as a consequence being exposed 
to the vengeance of the king, if the latter should obtain possession of him. 
On this very account also he took steps for the saving of his life, in that 
he withdrew by flight from the territory of Pharaoh. With this fact, 
however, it was perfectly reconcilable that in the consciousness of being 
chosen to be the deliverer of his people, and in the confidence in God, in 
whose hand alone he stood, be felt himself inwardly, or in his frame of 
mind, raised above all fear at the wrath of an earthly king. There is 
therefore no need of the concession (de Wette), that the author of the 
epistle, when he wrote down his 7) ¢0fSeic, did not remember the words 
égoBHdn dé Moiojc, Ex. ii. 14. But just as little is it permissible, with 
Delitzsch, to press the expression xaréAumev, chosen by the author, and 
to assert that karadcweiv expresses the repairing hence without fear, 
whereas ¢v yeiv would denote the repairing hence from fear. The author 
might also have written without difference of signification—what is denied 
by Delitasch—iore: édvyev cic yav Madiau, uy d0BnSeic Tov Suudv tod Bacz- 
Aéwe.—The referring, on the other hand, of the statement, ver. 27, to the 
leading forth of the whole people, is shown to be entirely inadmissible— 
(1) from the consideration that, in the chronological order which the 
author pursues in the enumeration of his models of faith, the departure of 
Israel from Egypt could not have been mentioned before the fact on which 
he dwells in ver. 28, but only after the same; (2) that to the departure 
of the people out of Egypt the expression karéAurev (sc. Mwioge) Atyurtov 
is unsuitable ; (8) finally, that according to Ex. xii. 31 that departure was 
commanded by Pharaoh himself; in connection with the departure, 
therefore, any fear whatever at the wrath of the king could not arise.—rév 
yap adpatov o¢ dpav éxaptépyoer] for having the invisible (God) as it were before 
his eyes, he was strong and courageous. tov adpatov oc dbpav belongs 
together, and rév aéparov stands absolutely, without, what is thought 
most probable by B6hme, as also Delitzsch and Hofmann, our having to 
supplement BaoAéa to the same. Contrary to linguistic usage, Luther, 
Bengel, Schulz, Paulus, Stengel (wavering), Ebrard combine rév adparov 


phylact, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Hetnsius, Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, 
Calmet, Bengel, Michaelis, Schulz, de Wette, Caloy, Braun, Baumgarten, Carpzcv, Rosen- 
Stengel, Tholuck, Bouman (Chartae theolog muller, Heinrichs, Huét, Bohme, Stuart, Kui- 
lib. II. Traj. ad Rhen. 1857, p. 157 sq.), De- noel, Paulus, Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, 
litazsch, Nickel (in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Ilofmann, Woerner, 
Marz, p. 207), Conybeare, Alford, Maier, Kluge, and others. 

Moll, Ewald; the latter by Nicholas de Lyra, 


686 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


with éxaprépyoev: he held firmly to the invisible one as though seeing Him; 
according to Ebrard, xaprepeiv riva signifies: “to comport oneself sted- 
fastly in regard to some one” (!), and the expression of our passage is 
supposed to acquire a pregnancy in the sense of rdv adparov tidy éxap- 
répyoev (1). Kaptepeiv te can only denote: stedfastly to bear or undergo 
something ; kaptepeiv teva, however, cannot be used in Greek. 

Ver. 28. Comp. Ex. xii—Iliore:] in believing confidence, sc. in the word 
of God, at whose command he acted, that the blood of the paschal lambs 
would become the means of delivering the Israelities.—rezoinkev 10 rdoya]} 
he ordained the Passover. In the perfect there lies the characterization of 
the regulation then adopted as something still continuing in force even to 
the present. With the notion of the meet ordering of the Passover blends 
consequently the idea of the institution thereof; although it is true only 
To waova, not likewise the addition kai rv rpédcyvow Tod aiparoc, is suitable 
thereto.—xai ryv mpdcyvow Tov aivatoc] and the affusion of the blood. What 
is intended is the sprinkling or anointing of the door-posts and lintels of 
the Israelite houses with the blood of the slain paschal lambs, enjoined by 
Moses at the command of God, Ex. xii. 7, 22 f—rpécyvore] in Holy Scrip- 
ture only here.—iva jj 6 dAobpebuv ta mpwréroKa Biyy abtov] that the slayer 
of the first-born might not touch them. By 6 6A0@pebwr, the destroyer, the 
LXX. at Ex. xii. 23 have translated the Hebrew MMW, the destruction, 
thinking in connection therewith of an angel of destruction sent forth by 
God. Comp. 1 Chron. xxi. 12, 15 (ayyedo¢e kupiov éoAoApetwv); 2 Chron. 
xxxll. 21; Keclus. xlvili. 21; 1 Cor. x. 10 (6 dtofpevtag).—rta mpwrdroxa] 
Ex. xii. 12: rav rpwréroxov . . . ard avOpdrov &we Krhvove. Comp. ibid. ver. 
29. We have to construe ra tporéroka With 6 ddoApevwr, not, as Klee, 
Paulus, Ebrard, and Hofmann will, with 67, since the combination of 
fyyavew with an accusative is not usual.—ai7év] namely the Israelites. This 
reference of the air6v was self-evident from the connection, although the 
Israelites are not previously mentioned. See Winer, p. 138 f. [E. T. 147]. 

Ver. 29. Comp. Ex. xiv. 22 ff—TIlicre] Oecumenius: éziorevoay yap 
SiaBhocobar Kai déByoav' tocovTov oidev 4 TioTi¢ Kal TA adbvata SvvaTa ToLEIV.— 
déByoav| namely, the Israelites under Moses.—éc¢ dia Enpac yic] as through 
dry, firm land. 'The less usual 6/a with the genitive, alternating with the 
ordinary accusative in connection with d:aBaiverv, Was probably occasioned 
by the reading of the LXX. Ex. xiv. 29 (oi dé viol "IopaiA éxopetOnoav ded 
Enpac év péow tho Baddoonc).—co Teipav AaBdvtec of Alyimtiot KaterdAnoav] in 
the essaying of which the Egyptians were drowned.—jec refers back to tiv 
épvopav baAaccav, not, as BOhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Bloomfield, 
Delitzsch, Kurtz suppose, to &ypac¢ yye. For the former is the main 
thought, of which the readers are reminded anew by «kareré3noav, whereas 
og dia Enpac¢ contains only a subsidiary feature, attached by way of com- 
parison.—z eipav AauPBavecyv tivéc stands here in the activesense. Other- 
wise ver. 836—katamtivecdar, however (comp. Ex. xv. 4), is a more general 
expression for the more definite xararovri{ecSa, which latter (katerov- 
tiodyoav) is found also in our passage, in some cursives, as likewise with 
Chrysostom and Theodoret. 


CHAP. XI. 30-32. 687 


Ver. 80. The example of faith afforded by the Israelite people in con- 
nection with the siege of Jericho, Josh. vi.—IIiore:] on the ground of faith, 
which, namely, the people displayed. Wrongly Grotius, who supposes 
risrec is to be construed with kuxAwdévra.—érecav] On the plural of the 
verb with the neuter plur., see Winer, p. 479 [E. T. 514 f.].—nveauoderra] 
after they (daily with the ark of the covenant, heralded by trumpet blast) 
had been encircled (incorrectly Schulz, and others: beleaguered).—éni éxra 
juépac] for seven days, seven days long. Comp. Winer, p. 381 [E. T. 408]. 

Ver. 31. The example of the Gentile woman Rahab, Josh. i1., vi. 17, 22 ff. 
Her conduct had proceeded from the recognition that the God of the 
Israelities is a God in heaven and upon earth, and from the confidence 
thereon based, that this God would lead them to victory. Comp. Josh. ii. 
9 ff—'PaaB 7 mépvy] Comp. Jas. 1. 25; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. c. 12. The 
epithet 7 ~épvz7 is to be left in its literal sense. To interpret it, with Jac. 
Cappellus, Valckenaer, Heinrichs, and others, after the precedent of the 
Chaldee paraphrase and the Arabian version, by the hostess, or, with Hof- 
mann, the harlots’ hostess, or, with Braun and others, the heathen woman, 
or finally, with Koppe (in Heinrichs) and others, the idolatress, is arbitrary. 
The designation of Rahab as 7% zépvy is an historic characterization, in 
accordance with Josh. ii. 2, vi. 17 ff, and without any ground of offence. 
For it has already been rightly observed by Calvin : “hoc (epitheton) ad 
anteactam vitam referri certum est; resipiscentiae enim testis est fides.” 
Comp. further, Matt. xxi. 31, 32.—roic arevSjoacu] the inhabitants of 
Jericho. They had shown themselves disobedient, because they had 
resisted the people of God (Josh. vi. 1), although not to them either had 
the mighty deeds of this God remained unknown (Josh. ii. 10).—defayévy 
Tove KaTaoKérrovg per’ eiphryc] seeing she had received the spies with peace, t.e. 
without practising acts of hostility towards them, to which she might have 
been incited by reason of their nationality. 

Vv. 82440. Onaccount of the multitude of models of faith which are 
still to be found in the O. T., the author must abandon the attempt of 
presenting them singly to the readers. He relinquishes, therefore, the 
previous description in detail, and briefly sums up that to which he could 
further call attention. He mentions first, at ver. 32, another series of heroes 
of the faith; and then portrays in general rubrics their deeds of faith, and 
that in such form that ver. 338 .. . dAdo, ver. 35, deeds of victorious faith are 
brought into relief, and thence to the end of ver. 38 deeds of suffering faith. 

Ver. 82. Kai ri ére Aéyw 5] And to what end do T still speak ? i.e. what 
need is there yet, after that which has already been mentioned, of a further 
description in detail? and what end can it serve, since, considering the 
abundance of the historic material, an exhaustive presentation is surely 
impossible ?—Aéyw] is indicative. See Winer, p. 267 [E. T. 284].—ér:Aeirew] 
only here in the N. T.—érideiwer ye yap dujyobuevov 6 ypdvoc. repi Tededv 
x.t.A.] for the time will not suffice me for relating of Gideon, etc! 6 ypévoc] 


1Comp. Demosth. de Corona, ed. Reisk. p. mpodot@y ovouata; Julian. Orat. 1, p. 341 B: 
324: emAciber we A€yovTa  HnMEepa Ta TaV emAciWwer me Takeivov Sunyovmevov Oo xpovos. 


588 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Oecumenius: 6 ypdvog 6 TH ExtoToAg, dyoiv, dpuddiog Kai olov 4 ovppetpia; 
Theophylact: soto¢; #7 6 mag’ eipyta dé TovTO, O¢ oivybes iuiv Aéyev, breEp- 
Borukog’ i 6 Th ExtoTOAH Cbupetpoc.—rept Tededv Kai Bapax x.7.A.] of Gideon, 
as well as of Barak, etc. That here too, in connection with the correct 
text, the regard to chronology is not lost sight of, see in the critical 
remark.—On Gideon, comp. Judg. vi—vill.; on Barak, Judg. iv., v., on 
Samson, Judg. xiii—xvi.; on Jephthah, Judg. xi. 1-xii.7—The last double 
member is yet enlarged by the addition kai rév zpodyntdv to Yapovga, 
because Samuel opened the series of the prophets; cf. Acts ili. 24. 

Ver. 38. O07 did riotewe Katyywvricavto Baocideiac] who by virtue of faith 
subdued kingdoms. The 61a riorewe with emphasis placed at the head 
dominates the whole description following, so that it continues equally to 
sound forth in connection with all the finite verbs as far as repijAov, ver. 
37.—oi, however, connects in a lax manner that which follows with that 
which precedes, in so far as, vy. 33, 34, respect is had, in part at least, to 
yet other persons besides those mentioned ver. 32. As regards the sub- 
ject-matter, therefore, there would have been more accurately written in 
place of the mere o¢: “ who with others like-minded.”—kcatayovilecdar 
further, in the N. T. a ama Aeyduevor, signifies to get the better of or over- 
power. With Bohme to attach to the same the signification: “to acquire 
by fighting” (“certamine sibi paraverunt regna; quod nostra lingua 
succinctius ita dixeris: sie haben sich Herrscherwiirden erkampft”), is 
opposed to the wsus loquendi.—The statement itself for the rest is true, as 
of David, who vanquished the Philistines (2 Sam. v. 17-25, vii. 1, 
xxi. 15 ff), Moabites, Syrians, Edomites (2 Sam. vill. 2 ff), and 
Ammonites (2 Sam. x., xii. 26 ff.), so also of the four judges, mentioned 
ver, 32, inasmuch as Gideon smote the Midianites (Judg. vii.), Barak the 
Canaanites (Judg. iv.), Samson the Philistines (Judg. xiv. ff), Jephthah 
the Ammonites (Judg. xi.).—eipydcavro Sixaocivyv] wrought righteousness 
and justice, namely, for their subjects, in virtue of their quality as judges or 
kings. Comp. roveiv Kpipa Kat dixacooivyv, 2 Sam. viii. 15; 1 Chron. xviii, 
14; 2Chron. ix. Sal. Too generally Erasmus, Schlichting, Grotius, Schulz, 
Stein, and others (comp. already Theodoret : roiro kowdv rOv dyiwv dxdvTwr) : 
they did that which was morally good or pious.—érérexov érayyed1ov] obtained 
promises, i.e. either: came into the possession of blessings which God had 
promised them,! or: received words of promise on the part of God? Fither 
interpretation is admissible. Yet in the first case, that no contradiction 
with ver. 39 (comp. also ver. 18) may arise, only, what the absence of the 
article before érayyeAav also permits, blessings and successes of earthly 
nature could be meant. In the first case, one may think of Judg. vii. 7 
and the like, while in the second case the words are specially to be 


Parallel is also the Latin: deficit me dies, 1Piscator, Owen, Huét, BGhme, Stuart, de 
tempus, e.g. Liv. xxviii. 41: Dies me deficiat, Wette, Delitzsech, Alford, Maier, Moll, Hof- 
si... numerare velim; Cic. pro Rose. Amer. mann, Woerner, and the majority. 

c. 32, init.; tempus, hercule, te citius, quam 2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Schlichting, Pri- 
oratio deficeret. Further instances (also masius, [Whitby 2], Bleek, Ebrard, Kurtz, at 
from Philo) see in Wetstein and Bleek. 


CHAP. XI. 33-30. 689 


referred to the Messianic promises given to Dayid and the prophets.— 
Eppasav otouata Aedvtwv] closed the jaws of lions. Comp. with regard to 
Daniel, Dan. vi. 22 (1 Mace. ii. 60); with regard to Samson, Judg. xiv. 6; 
with regard to David, 1 Sam. xvii. 34 ff. 

Ver. 34, “EoBecav divayv rupdc] Quenched the violence of fire (fire’s 
violence).! To be compared is the statement with regard to Shadrach, 
Meshach, and Abednego, the three companions of Daniel, Dan. iii. Comp. 
1 Mace. il. 59: ’Avaviac, ’ACapiac, MicanAa mioteboavtec éodOyoay éx oAoy6c.— 
épvyov atéuata paxaipac] escaped the swordpoints ; e.g. David, comp. 1 Sam. 
xvill. 11, xix. 10, 12, xxi. 10; Elijah, comp. 1 Kings xix.1 ff.; Elisha, comp. 
2 Kings vi. 14 ff., 31 f£—évedvvanddycav axd dodeveiac] out of weakness were 
made strong. These words Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and 
Theophylact refer to the strengthening of the whole people by liberation from 
the Babylonian captivity ; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Schlichting, 
Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Owen, Heinrichs, Huét, Béhme, Stuart, Stein, 
Tholuck, Ebrard, and the majority, partly exclusively, partly, among 
other things, to the recovery of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx.; Isa. XXXVIil.) ; 
certainly more correct, however, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Bleek, 
de Wette, Hofmann, to the reinvigoration of the weakened Samson (J udg. xvi. 
28 ff.).—éyev79noav ioxupot év roAéuw] waxed valiant in battle. Theodoret 
kal ot mpoppydévtec Kai oi Tov MatraViov raidec Iobdac Kai Tovady¢ kat Sip. 
That the author was thinking of the Maccabees also, in particular, in 
addition to the judges and David, is certainly very probable —rapeuBorac 
fxdwwav addotpiov| Made armies of aliens flinch or give way. Theodoret: 7d 
av7d dragspwc eipnKkev.—rape pu Body, as NIM, in the signification of army ; 
likewise Judg. iv. 16, vii. 14; 1 Mace. v. 28, 45, and frequently. With the 
Greeks this signification of the word is rare.2—«4ivecv, in the sense 
indicated, is found in Holy Scripture only here. 

Ver. 35. "EAaBov yuvaixec é€ avactdoewe rove vexpode aitov] Women received 
back their dead (their sons) through resurrection. Those meant are the 
widow of Sarepta (1 Kings xvii. 17 ff.), whose son was awakened out of 
death by Elijah, and the Shunammite woman (2 Kings iv. 18 ff.), whose 
son was raised by Elisha. Far-fetched is the supposition of Biesenthal (in 
Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. die ges. luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1866, H. 4, p. 616 ff.) : 
reference is made to the tradition, preserved to us in the rabbinical and 
talmudic literature, of the cessation of the dying away of the male popu- 
lation in the wilderness on the 15th Ab.—Syntactically ver. 35 begins a 
new proposition (against BGhme, who, as unnaturally as possible, makes 
the statement éa3ov .. . airév still dependent on oi, ver. 33, and regards 
yuvaixec aS apposition to oi)—With dAdoc dé, tothe close of ver. 38, the 
discourse passes over to examples of a suffering faith, which remained still 
unrewarded upon earth.—a/Aor 62 éryuravio8noav] Others, on the other hand, 
were stretched on the rack. Allusion to the martyr-death of Eleazar (2 Mace. 
vi. 18 ff), and of the seven Maccabean brothers, together with their 


1Theophylact: ovx etme 5& EoBeoav mip adda 2Comp., however, Aelian, Var. Hist. xiv. 46: 
Svvapyiv mupos, 6 Kai pecgov' éfamtomevov yap “Hrixa 6€ eer cvupitar, évtavOa oi mév Kvveg 
OAws SUvauty TOD Kaley ovK elxe kat’ avtav. mpomydwvTes ETApaTTOY THY TapEeu“BoAnp. 


44 


690 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


mother (2 Mace. vii.). tuuzavifeodac means: to be stretched out upon 
the rivzavov (comp. 2 Mace. vi. 19, 28), an instrument of torture (prob- 
ably wheel-shaped, Josephus, de Mace. c. 5, 9, 10: tpoyxéc),—to be stretched 
out like the skin of a kettledrum, in order then to be tortured to death by 
blows (comp. 2 Mace. vi. 30).—ob rpocdeZauevor] not accepting, i.e since the 
expression, by reason of the objective negation oi, blends into a single 
notion: disdaining.—riv axoditpwow] the deliverance, namely the earthly 
one, which they could have gained by the renouncing of their faith. 
Comp. 2 Mace. vi. 21 ff., vii. 27 f£—iva kpeitrovog avactacewe Tiywour] that they 
might become partakers of a better resurrection. Motive for the contemning 
of earthly deliverance. Comp. 2 Mace. vii. 9, 11, 14, 20, 28, 29, 36, as also 
2 Mace. vi. 26. xpeitrovoc stands not in opposition to the resurrection 
of the ungodly unto judgment, Dan. xii. 2,! neither does it form any anti- 
thesis to é€ dvacrdcewe in the beginning of the verse,? which is too remote ; 
but corresponds to the ao26Tpwow immediately preceding. A much higher 
possession was the resurrection to the eternal, blessed life, than the tem- 
poral deliverance from death ; which latter could be regarded, likewise, as 
a sort of resurrection, but truly only as a lower and valueless one. 

Ver. 36. Others endured mockings and scourges, yea, moreover, bonds and 
prison. “E7vepos, in accordance with its verbal signification, introduces a 
heterogeneous class of heroes of the faith, i. e. a particular species of the 
ad4o1, mentioned as the genus ver. 35. As regards the subject itself, in- 
deed, inexact, since, ver. 85, with dAdo d& éruuraviodnoar «.7.2.. reference was 
made not merely to 2 Mace. vi., but—as the addition iva kpeitrovoc dvacrdcewc 
Toxwow Clearly shows—at the same time to 2 Mace. vii.; the mention, how- 
ever, of the scourging along with the mocking seems to admit of explana- 
tion only from the author’s referring to 2 Mace. vi. 30 (uaortyobmevoc) and 
vii. 1 (udorige Kai vevpaic aixefouévovc), as indeed the enduring of public 
mockery is expressly mentioned (in addition tol Mace. ix. 26) at 2 Mace. 
Vil. 7 (rov debtepov ayov éri Tov guraypdv), and again 2 Mace. vii. 10 (wera dé 
TovTov 6 tpitoc éverraifero). On the other hand, however, it seems evident 
that it was the intention of the writer at ver. 36 in reality to draw atten- 
tion to a dissimilar class of men; from the fact, even apart from the choice 
of the expression érepor, that in the case of the previous dAAoz dé érupravic- 
Jyoav k.t.A. We are constrained to think of a death by martyrdom, while 
at ver. 36 the enhancing érv dé forbids our thinking of the martyr’s death, 
since, according to this, bonds and dungeon were a more severe trial than 
mocking and scourging. We must therefore suppose that the author de- 
signed further to refer to those, as forming a special category, who, with- 
out suffering actual death, were exposed to other kinds of tortures and 
miseries; that he still derived, however, the main colors for this new picture 


1Oecumenius: kpe(rrovos ... ot Aotrot Tav yuvacev; Theophylact, who does not, 
avOpwro y Mev yap avacTagis Tact KoLVy, however, decide; Bengel, Schulz, Boéhme, 
GAN’ obtor avacrygovtat, dyaiv, cis Cwhv Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, 
aiwviov, Kat ovToL eis KOAagLW aiwviov. Comp. Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
Theophylact. 617, Obs. ; Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and others. 
£Chrysostom: ov rtova’tys, olas Ta madia 


CHAP. XI. 36, 37. : 691 
from the historic figure which but just now had been present to his mind 
in connection with the éryuraviodycav «.7.2.—The enhancing é7. dé is tobe 
explained from the fact that éumatyywoi nai waorcyec denotes the more 
transient suffering, in point of time more brief; decuoi kai gvaakh, on 
the other hand, the longer enduring sufferings—reipav AauBavew] here in 
the passive sense: to have experience of something. Otherwise ver. 29.— 
deouav Kai puAaxyjc] Comp. 1 Mace, xiii. 12; 1 Kings xxii. 27; Jer. xxxvii., 
XXXVIIL., al. 

Ver. 37. ’EAvddodnoav] They were stoned. To be referred to Zechariah, 
son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22; comp. Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke xi. 
51), and probably also to Jeremiah, of whom at least later tradition reports 
death by stoning.’ Less suitably do Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jac. Cap- 
pellus, Grotius, and others think also of Naboth, 1 Kings xxi.—éxpiodyoar] 
were sawn asunder. Death by sawing asunder (comp. 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 
Chron. xx. 3) was, according to early tradition, that suffered by Isaiah at 
the hands of Manasseh, king of Judah.’—érepacdyjoav] were tempted. 
[LXXVIIj.] This general statement has about it something strange and 
inconvenient, inasmuch as it occurs in the midst of the mention of differ- 
ent kinds of violent death. Some, therefore, have been in favor of en- 
tirely deleting érecpactyoav, in doing which, however, we are not justified by 
external evidence ;* while others have thought that éecpac@ycav is a cor- 
ruption, in itself early, of the original text, which latter must be restored 
by conjecture. It has been conjectured by Beza, edd. 8, 4,5, that we have 
to read éxvpabyoav ; Gataker, Miscell. 44, Colomesius, Observ. 5, Moll, and 
Hofmann: éxpfobjoav; Fr. Junius, Paraill. lib. iii., and Piscator: érvpacty- 
cav; Sykes and Ebrard: érvpiotycav, they were burned Further, Luther 
(transl.), Beza, edd.1 and 2, Knatchbull, Fischer, Proluss. de vitiis Levic. N. 
T. p. 588; Ewald, p. 171, read érap6yoav (?), from reipw, they were pierced, 
transfixed ; Wakefield, Silv. crit. 11. 62: érepadycav, from zepaw (?), they were 
spitted, impaled ; Tanaq. Faber, Epp. crit. 11. 14, and J. M. Gesner in Carp- 
20V: éxnpobnoav, they were mutilated ; Alberti: éoreipdcOyoav or éoreipadycar, 
‘rom. areipa (?), they were broken on the wheel ; Steph. le Moyne in Gronov. 

(nt. Gr. vil. p. 801: éexpadnoar, they were sold. Others yet other conject- 
ires; see Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz ad loc. Bleek, too, assumes an 
error in the text, in that he holds a word which signifies “to be consumed, 





*Comp. Tertull. Scorpiac.8; Hieronym. adv. sion in Erpen., also omits it,—in the Aethiopic 


Jovinian. ii. 37; Pseudo-EBpiphan. (Opp. ii. p. 
239), al. 

2See Ascens. Jes. vat. vy. 11-14; Justin Martyr, 
Dial. c. Tryph. 120; Tertull. de Patient. 14, 
Scorpiac. 8; Origen, Epist. ad African. ; Lact- 
ant, Institt. iv. 11, al.; Tr. Jevamoth, f. 49. 2; 
Sanhedrin, f. 103. 2. 

3Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Marloratus, 
Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, Calmet, Storr, 
Valekenaer, Schulz, BGhme, Kuinoel, Klee, 
Delitzsch, Maier, al. 

4It is wanting only.in some cursives, in the 
Peshito,—whose daughter, the Arabian ver- 


version, which also omits émpic6noav, with 
Origen (once, as compared with four times), 
Euseb. and Theophyl. 

5 Reuss, too, regards érupic@yoav [as does 
Conybeare érvpac@ycay] as the most likely 
conjecture, but regards it, likewise, as pos- 
sible: “que le éwe:pac@yoav dans le texte 
vulgaire ne fat qu'une conjecture trés super- 
flue, destinée 4 remplacer le mot émpic@noav 
(ils furent sciés), parce que l’Ancien Testa- 
ment ne fournit pas d’exemple de ce dernier 
supplice.” 


692 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

to perish by fire,” as éxpjodyoay, which is found with Cyrill. Hieros., and in 
Codd. 110, 111 for éxpiodyoav, or érvpiodyoav, or even one of the forms more 
commonly employed for the expressing of this idea,—éverpjodyjoav and 
évervpiodyoav,—to be the original reading, and then supposes the author 
perhaps to have thought once more of martyrs under the tyranny of An- 
tiochus Epiphanes, 2 Mace. vi. 11, vii. 4 f.; Dan. xi. 33, al. Similarly 
Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 111 sqq., who leaves open the choice between 
éxphodnoav and érvpodyoav.—lf éerecpadcdnoav is genuine, it must have 
been added by the author for the sake of the paronomasia with ézpicdjcar, 
and be referred to the enticements and temptations to escape a violent 
death by means of apostasy (comp. e. g. 2 Mace. vii. 24).—év ¢6v@ wayaipac 
arédavov] died by slaughter of the sword. Comp. 1 Kings xix. 10: rove zpo- 
oyrac cov aréktewav év pougaia; Jer. XXVi. 23; Kai éxdtagev aitov év payaipa 
(namely, the prophet Urijah). For the expression é ¢6vy uayaipac, 
comp. LXX. Ex. xvii.18; Num. xxi. 24; Deut. xiii. 15, xx. 13.—repi7- 
Jov ... tHe ye, Ver. 88, now further emphasizes the fact that the whole 
life of the last-named class of the heroes of faith was one of want and dis- 
tress.—repij7Adov év pnhwtaic, év aiyeiow dépuacw] refers specially to single 
prophets. Comp. Zech. xiii. 4.2—zepijAdov] they went hither and thither, 
without being in possession of a fixed dwelling-place. Theophylact: 76 dé 
repijAVov Td dioKecSat avTov¢ dyAoi Kai dorateiv.— év] in, 7. e. clothed with.— 
év pndwraic, év aiyeiow Séppacw] in sheep-skins, in goat fells. The latter, as 
designation of a yet rougher clothing, is an ascent from the former, and 
on that account placed last. 747%, the hide of smaller cattle in gen- 
eral, and specially of sheep. A yyAor? is mentioned as the garment of 
Elijah, which, on his being caught up to heaven, he left behind to Elisha, 
1 Kings xix. 18, 19; 2 Kings vill. 18, 14.—iorepobpevor, FALBduevor, Kaxovyobpe- 
vor] in want (sc. of that which is necessary for the sustenance of life), afflic- 
tion, evil-treatment (comp. ver. 25). 

Ver. 38. ‘Qv ovk qv aoc 6 kéopoc] Men, to possess whom the (corrupt) world 
(ver. 7) was not worthy3—év] goes back to the subject in repijAdov, ver. 37. 
In a forced manner Bohme (as also Kuinoel, Klee, and Stein): it points 
to that which follofvs, and the sense is: oberravisse illos in desertis tales, 
quibus vulgus hominum, ut esse soleat, pravum ac impium, haud dignum 
fuerit, quocum illi eodem loco versarentur. Not less unnaturally does 
Hofmann:look upon éy ob« Hv a&wo¢ 6 Kéouog as Only a following definition 


1Comp. also Philo, ad Flace. p. 990 A (with 
Mangey, II. p. 542): KateAvO@nodv tives (se. 
Alexandrine Jews, by Flaccus) kat GavrTes 
oi péev évempyoOnacay oi S€ dia peéons 
KaTecvpyoay ayopas, Ews OAa Ta THMATA AVT@V 
eSarrav7yOn. 

2Also Clemens Romanus, ad Corinth. 17: 
Mipynral yevwomeda Kakeivwy, oitives ev Séppaciv 
aiyelo.s Kal MyNAWTals TEpLeTAaTHTAY, KnPYTOOV- 
Tes Thy éAevotv TOU XpioTov’ A€youev Se HALav 
kai ’EAtooator, éte 5€ kai “leGextyA Tovs mpo- 
oyras. 


8Theophylact: Ovx« éxete, Pyocv, eimeiv OTe 
ajLapTwAoL OVTES TOLAUTA ETATKOV, AAAG TOLOUTOL, 
olor Kai TOU KOGMOovV avTOD TiiwTEpoL ecivat. 


Calvin: Quum ita profugi inter feras vaga- 


bantur sancti prophetae, videri poterant in- 
digni, quos terra sustineret. Qui fit enim, ut 
inter homines locum non inveniant? Sed 
apostolus in contrariam partem hoe retorquet, 
nempe quod mundus illis non esset dignus. 
Nam quocunque veniant servi Dei, ejus bene- 
dictionem, quasi fragrantiam bcoi odoris, 
secum afferunt. 


CHAP. XI. 38—40. 693 


of subject to repijASov, in that he begins a new section of the discourse 
with zeppAdov. To a yet greater extent, finally, has Carpzoy missed the 
true interpretation, when, taking ov as a neuter, he supplies kaxov (borep7- 
cewr, Aipewv), and gives as the sense: quorum indignus malorum erat 
mundus. Id est: tam crudelibus affecti sunt suppliciis, ut illa mundo in- 
digna sint; ut orbem terrarum non deceat, tam horrenda ac ¢oSeporara de 
eo dici—*v épyuiae TAavepuevor K.t.2.] wandering in deserts and wpon moun- 
tains, and in caves and the clefts [clifts] of the earth. Comp. 1 Kings xyviil. 
AIS xi 4468.9. 13-01. Macewls 25,20) 2 Mace, x2 (,.Vie LL ox. 6: 

Vy. 39, 40. General remark in closing.—Kai o770. ravtec] And these all. 
Refers back to tie totality of the persons named, from ver. 4 (not merely, 
as Schlichting, Hammond, and Storr suppose, to those mentioned from 
GAroe dé, ver. 85).—paptupydévtes dua tHe Tiotewc] although by virtue of their 
faith they received a (glorious) testimony (in Scripture).—ovK éxopioavto tiv 
érayycriav] did not bear away the promise (wrongly Ebrard: the aorist stands 
“pro plusquamperf.”), 7. e. attained not, so long as they lived, to the pos- 
session of that which was promised, namely, the Messianic blessedness. 

Ver. 40. [LX XVII &.] The ground for the obx éxouicavto tiv éxayyediav lay 
in the decree of God, that those believers should not apart from us attain 
to the consummation.—rovd Geod repi judv Kpeitrov te TpoBAepauévov] God 
having, with regard to us, foreseen (pre-determined) something better.—rpo- 
B2éxew] in the N. T. only here.—On account of the emphatically preposed 
rept 74@v, Which forms the contrast to otro. mayrec, ver. 39, Kpeittév Te 
cannot be placed absolutely : “Something better than would otherwise have 
been our portion ” (Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Huét). With this thought, 
moreover, iva nu) yopic Juav reAewSaow would not have been in keeping, 
since, instead thereof, iva ody abroi¢ TehewIGuev must have been written. 
The sense can only be: in regard to us something better than in regard to 
them. In regard to us something better, inasmuch as when they lived the 
appearing of the Redeemer as yet belonged to the distant future, and was 
an object of longing desire (Matt. xiii. 16 f.; Luke x. 238 f.); but now 
Christ has in reality appeared, has accomplised the redemption, and pres- 
ently after a brief interval will return, to bring to full realization the Mes- 
sianic kingdom with all its blessings of salvation. Comp. x. 25, 36 f—iva 
uy xopic judv tedewaow] Declaration of the divine design: that they not 
without us should attain to the consummation. Without us, 2. e. without our 
having entered into the joint participation in the consummation, they 
would have attained to the consummation, if Christ had already appeared 
in their time, and so they had already attained during their lifetime to the 
possession of the promised Messianic bliss. For then we should not have 
been born at all; since, according to the declaration of the Lord (Matt. 
xxii. 30; Mark xii. 25; Luke xx. 35 f.), in the consummated kingdom of 
God a marrying and being given in marriage will no longer take place. 


694 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
Lax XV. Vink. 1. 


(a) The definition of faith, which is given in this verse, is, as Liem. remarks, not 
an exhaustive one, and it is, undoubtedly, not intended to be so. It sets forth only 
that element or characteristic of faith which the subject under discussion suggests. 
There is no evidence, therefore, in this verse, that the writer did not have the 
same view of faith which Paul had. Indeed, Paul’s idea of faith was that of trust; 
and this, in relation to the unseen and unrealized things of the future, is, and must 
be, just what this author here says: conviction and assured confidence. Had Paul 
discoursed upon the subject of this epistle and moved along the line of this writer's 
general plan, he might well—not to say, must—have expressed himself in sub- 
stantially the same way. The evidence against the Pauline authorship of the 
epistle is not to be found in the Christian ideas which it presents, but in the style 
and plan, the rhetorical character and modes of expression, the points, in a word, 
which justify what Origen says—that the vojyata are the Apostle’s, but the 
@paoie Kai oivb_eore belong to another. The author was a Pauline disciple, who 
had no new system of thought, but who wrote his epistle by and for himself. He 
was Apollos, rather than Paul. 

(b) The two peculiarities of the things revealed by the N. T. system, as related 
to stedfast perseverance, are that they are objects of hope (being uot yet realized), 
and that they are unseen. Faith, as the thing demanded by the N.T. system, has 
that which answers to each of these peculiarities :—it is i7éoraovc in the former 
aspect, and éAeyyoc in the latter. The meaning of these two words is thus made 
clear. inéaraoe is confidence (comp. ili. 14), and éeyxo¢ is conviction. That this is 
the true interpretation is confirmed by the fact that, inasmuch as faith is subjective 
to the mind, the things which are declared to be equivalent to or descriptive of it 
must also be subjective. The rendering of éAeyyoc by A. R. V., « conviction (Liinem. : 
a firm inner persuasion) is, accordingly, to be preferred to the renderings given by 
R. V. text, the proving, and R. V. marg., the test. 


LKXVI. ‘Vv. 2:3. 


& . 

(a) That the author’s design in the remaining verses of the chapter is to 
illustrate the nature of faith, as thus defined, and as that in the sphere of which 
the iroyovh, or stedfast endurance, is to be maintained to the end, is evident both 
from the ydp of ver. 2 and the opening verses of ch. xii. The yép of ver. 2 covers in 
its force the sentence which fills that verse. As the persons referred to in all the 
~ following verses, however, are included in the “ elders” who are mentioned in this 
sentence, the force of this yap extends, in thought, to the end of the chapter.—(6) 
It is noticeable that ver. 3 follows the general statement of ver.2. It would seem, 
therefore, that the author must have intended, in some way, to bring this verse 
within the historic review of the O. T., and to give it, in some sense, a parallelism 
with the individual cases or records which follow. As de W. remarks: On open- 
ing the book of examples (the O. T.) he did not find, indeed, an example of faith 
at the very beginning—as he did afterwards in the record—but a proof of the 
necessity of faith. For this or a kindred reason, we may believe that he intro- 
duced this verse into his list of illustrations-—(c) The inaptness which Liinem. 
finds in the insertion of this verse is not to be especially insisted upon, because— 


= —— 


NOTES. 695 


although the movement of faith here is not precisely in the line of that in the 
following verses—the fact, that even with reference to the beginning of all earthly 
things we can only have conviction of the unseen, lies directly in the course of prov- 
ing the necessity of continuing in faith, which is the fundamental thought of the 
entire passage in its relation to what precedes and follows.—(d) ei¢ 76 is taken by 
Liinem. in the telic sense, and probably rightly. It does not appear to be so 
clear, however, that elc 76 with the infinitive always, and necessarily, has this 
sense, and not the ecbatic, as it does in the case of ue with the subjunctive. &¢ 
suggests the end of motion, and this may convey the idea of the result, as well as of 
the purpose.—(e) wh belongs, as Liinem. takes it, with the whole object-sentence. 
“In all that we see with our sense, of re-creation and reproduction,” says Alford, 
“+5 Brerduevov éx garvouévov yéyovev, The seed becomes the plant; the grub the 
moth. But that which is above sight, viz., faith, leads us to apprehend, that this 
has not been so in the first instance: that the visible world has not been made out 


of apparent materials.” 


LXXVII. Vv. 440. 


In these verses the following points may be briefly noticed :—(a) éuaprupydn 
(ver. 4). This verb seems here, and in the other cases where it is used in this 
chapter, to refer to the testimony given or implied in the O. T—(b) The words 
mpo TH¢ wetatécewc (ver. 5) may, indeed, be connected either with “eyaprvpyrac 
or with evapeotyxévac. As it seems to be of no moment, however, to the author’s 
purpose to state the time of the O. T. testimony, that Enoch was well-pleasing to 
God—whether this testimony was given, in the record, before or after his transla- 
tion ;—hut is of consequence, that his pleasing God, which involved faith, was the 
cause of his translation, as shown by the O. T. declaration that the former 
preceded the latter—the connection with evapeotyxévar is to be preferred. The 
point of the author’s thought, in all cases, seems to be that the O. T. witness was 
given and still remains, but not that it was given at one period or another in the 
history of the person to whom reference is made.—(c) The reference of the phrase 
dixavoobvyc Kata riotw to the thought suggested by the words of x. 38, which is 
the starting-point of this chapter, can hardly be overlooked. The allusion to 
Gen. vi. 9. where Noah is called righteous, is also probable. The similarity of 
the expression to the Pauline 6x, é« ior., and yet the difference in respect to the 
preposition, will not fail to be noticed by all careful readers. We must determine 
the question as to the writer’s idea in the use of this phrase in view of these 
points. It may be remarked, 1. that though it does not seem absolutely necessary 
1o give to dxavoobvy here the Pauline sense—i.e. the condition of being declared 
right by God as before His tribunal,—the suggestion of x. 38, as the author 
employs the words of that verse, is, nevertheless, favorable to this sense ; 2. that 
the contrast with the verb xaréxpivev, which is, to say the least, hinted at, favors 
the same meaning; 3. that the striking similarity to the Pauline phrase is most 
easily explained by giving 6x. this sense; and 4. that the use of «Ajpovouoc adds 
some force to the previous considerations. We may say, therefore, either that the 
writer’s idea coincides with that of Paul, or, if this be not certain, that it pre- 
supposes’ the existence of the Pauline doctrine—(d) The fact that the author 
uses Kata riot, and not é« miorewc, and the fact that he does not use the phrase 
with reference to Abraham, are both to be accounted for in the same way. He is 
not discussing the doctrine of justification, hut presenting circumstances in the 


696 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


history of O. T. saints which indicated their trust in God, through their confidence in 
things hoped for or a conviction respecting things not seen. The prominent acts 
of Abraham’s life evidencing his faith, rather than the statement that he was 
justified by faith, were adapted to impress the thought of iovovf in the line of 
faith on the minds of the readers.—(e) From the history of Abraham the four great 
facts are selected, which were especially connected with the covenant and salva- 
tion :—his obedience to the call of God, his sojourning in the land of promise, the 
birth, and the sacrifice of Isaac. With the birth of Isaac, Sarah is mentioned, as 
an additional illustration of faith. The presentation of the case of Abraham is so 
truly Pauline in its suggestions, that the Pauline influence on the author’s think- 
ing can scarcely fail to be noticed. But the turn of the discourse is all towards 
his hope of the future and faith in the unseen, not towards his justification. —( i) 
The explanation of kata vio (ver. 13) given by Liinem.,, is the correct one: 
namely, that the words qualify, not azé¥avov only, but that verb in union with 
the participles. The phrase seems, more probably, to mean in accordance with— 
as equivalent to: in the line of faith they died, with a greeting of the promises 
from afar, than as implying that their thus dying was (so Liinem.) conformable 
to the nature of faith. The insertion of vy. 13-16 before ver. 17 is, not improb- — 
ably, to be explained by the fact that, to the author’s mind, the beginning of the 
development of the plan of salvation was at the deliverance of Isaac from death. 
This was the starting-point of a new history, and, before turning to it, he sums up, 
as it were, the heroic elements of the faith of the earliest saints. 

(g) mapaBoay of ver. 19 is hardly to be explained, with Liinem., as connected 
with tapafaAAecda, in the sense to expose to danger, because of the doubt as to 
whether the noun ever has this sense in Greek usage previous to this writer’s 
time, and certainly does not anywhere else in the N. T. It is, however, favored 
by Grimm (Lex N. T.), and, if the meaning imperilling or giving up can be allowed, 
the explanation of the «ai is more simple and easy than with any other meaning. 
If we adopt the ordinary sense of the word, we may here understand it as 
equivalent to figure, rather than parable. But it is more than o¢ éroc eimeiv.— 
(h) The expressions tpécxaipov aréAavow apyaptiac (ver. 25) and Tov dvewWiopydv 
tov Xpiorov are, apparently, used from the standpoint of the writer’s time and 
thought—dyapria being connected with the idea of apostasy (Liinem.) and the 
reproach of Christ being regarded as overflowing, as it were, upon the saints of 
former ages; as, in Col. i. 24, His sufferings are ponesined of as passing over, in a 
sense, to believers—(7) The reasons presented by Liinemann in favor of the sup- 
position that in ver. 27 the writer refers to Exod. ii. 15, though not decisive, are 
so strong as to lead to its adoption. —(j) The presence of the general word 
érespacdyoav (ver. 37) in the midst of a series of special words, is in accordance 
with what we find in similar lists in Paul’s writings (comp. Rom. i. 29 ff. Gal. 
v. 22 f.), and is an evidence that the writer’s intention was not to classify with 
care, but simply to give emphasis by multiplying words.—(k) Ver. 40. The 
explanation of this verse is suggested by the following points:—l. The better 
thing is contrasted with not receiving the promise—it would seem, therefore, 
to be the fulfillment of the promise in the full N. T. revelation and salvation. 
2. If they had received it, they would have been perfected without us. The 
writer, accordingly, seems to conceive of the whole work as having been con- 
summated and “the end of the world” as having come, in the -opposite case 
supposed, before the time of the readers—so that they would not have lived. 


CHAP. XII. 697 


CHAPTER XII. 


VER. 2. Kexddixev] Elz.: éxaddcoev, But the perfect, adopted into the Editt. 
Complut. Genev. Plant., as also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, 
Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others, has the preponderant attestation of 
all the uncials, most cursives, and many Fathers in its favor ; and is likewise pre- 
ferable on internal grounds, since it represents the having sat down as a result 
extending into the present time.—Ver. 3. In place of the Recepta ei¢ aitév or 
ei¢ avrév, which has the support of D*** K L, almost all the cursives and 
many Fathers, there is found ei¢ avtrove in R*** with Theodoret (rd ei¢ aitoig 
avri row ei¢ éavrovc), and in Cod. 17; eic éavtobc, however, in &*, in the Peshito 
(quantum sustinuerit a peccatoribus, qui fuerunt adyersarii sibi ipsis), in D* 1D 
together with their Latin version (recogitate igitur, talem vos reportasse a pecca- 
toribus in vobis adversitatem), and in some mss. of the Vulgate; while the Sahi- 
dic and Armenian vss. entirely omit the words, and Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, 
de Wette write ei¢ éaurév. The latter, which is attested by A and the Vulgate 
(in semetipsum), indirectly also by D* E*, is to be held the original reading; the 
plural, on the other hand, to be rejected as devoid of sense.—avrucatéotnte] In 
place of this, Tisch. 2 writes, after L* 46, al., Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theophyl. 
ms.: dvrexatéotyte. This form of the word (see on the twofold augment, 
Winer, p. 69 f. [E. T. 72]) must, it is true, be adopted upon strong attestation, 
but is not in a position here to set aside the Recepta avtixatéatyre, where avrek, 
has against it the preponderating testimony of A D E L**8, ete. Rightly, there- 
fore, has Tisch. restored dvzvk. in the editt. vii. and viii—Ver. 5. Elz.: Yié ov. 
D*, some seven cursives, as also the Latin translation in D KE, have only Yié. 
Bleek has on that account suspected ov, and enclosed it within brackets. Exter- 
nal authority, however, does not warrant our deleting the pronoun. The occasion 
for its omission might be afforded by the occurrence of a similar initial letter in 
the following word, or by the text of the LXX. in which it is wanting.—Ver. 7. 
ei maideiav bropévere] Instead of this, Matth. Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Delitzsch, 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 758), and Alford read ele mardeiav bmopé- 
vere, and Griesbach has placed ei¢ upon the inner margin. In favor of ei¢ 
pleads, it is true, the greatly preponderating authority of A D E (?) K L &, of 
more than thirty cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Damase. Pro- 
cop., while ©i is found only with Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Slay. (?), and, as 
it seems, in many cursives. Nevertheless ei¢ is inadmissible. For, whether eic¢ 
macdeiav is taken still with Tapadé xerat, Or, as Hofmann will have it, with paoreyot, 
—whereby, however, that which follows would become deformed,—or it be com- 
bined with ‘rouévere, in any case taidela must be understood in the sense of 
“education,” whereas of a certainty, alike from that which precedes as from that 
which follows, the signification “chastisement” becomes a necessity.  Conse- 
quently the Receptaei mardciav iromévere is to be looked upon as that writ- 
ten by the author. The origin» lity and correctness of this reading (defended alsa 


698 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


by Reiche, p. 115 sqq.) becomes manifestly apparent from the fact that upon its 
recognition vy. 7, 8, in accordance with the usual accuracy of diction prevailing 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are in perfect mutual correspondence as type and 
antitype, alike as regards the protasis as also the apodosis—In place of the 
Recepta tig yap éotLv, we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, 8* Vulg. 
Sahid. Orig., to write merely: ti¢ yap.—Ver. 8. Elz.: vé9o0u éoré kai ody 
vioi, With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford, we have to trans- 
pose into: vdfoce kai ovy vioi éore, after A D* and D*** [in Cod. E all the 
rest is wanting from 7avrTec, ver. 8, to tle close of the Epistle] 8, 17, 37, 80, al. 

Vulg. It. Chrys. (codd.) and Latin Fathers.—Ver. 9. Elz.: ov oN panarov, 
But A D* & (D* 8*** with the addition of 0é) have od rodd warror, Rightly 
preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch, Alford—vVer. 15. In place of the received 
dca TabTn¢, we have to adopt, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 2, and Alford, 
after A, 17, 67** 80, 137, 238, Copt. ete., Clem. Chrys. (comment.): 6? airyec; 
and in place of the Recepta ro440i, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A &, 47, 
Clem. Theodoret: 01 toAAo/, The article was lost sight of in the homoioteleuton 
m=o4/0i1.—Ver. 16. Lachm. (and Tisch. 2 and 7, as well as Alford, have followed 
him therein !) has placed in the text, from A C, the form of the word amédero; 
but this, although not altogether unexampled (see Buttmann, Gramm. des neut. 
Sprachgebr. p. 40 f. [E. T. 47]), is manifestly a corruption of the Recepta a7 édoro, 
which is confirmed by the Cod. Sinait——On the other hand, the reading éavroi, 
given by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, merits, on account of its more decided attesta- 
tion by A C D** and D*** 8*, the preference over the Recepta aitovd or abrod. 
—Ver. 18. Elz.: pyAagwpévy bper, oper, furnished by D K L, in like man- 
ner, as it seems, by almost all cursives, Vulg. (ed. Clem.) Arab. polygl. Slav. 
Athan. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum., is wanting indeed in A C 8, 17, 47, in many 
mss. of the Vulg., in Copt. Sahid. Syr. Arab. Erp. Aeth., with Chrys. (comment.), 
Theophyl. Mart. pap. Bed., and was already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1071) as 
a gloss, and then deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, as likewise by Alford, is, 
however, indispensable, and is naturally called for by the opposition 4AAa mpooeAn- 
Avtate Xiav oper, ver. 22 (comp. also Tov dpove, ver. 20), as well as the confusion 
of idea in a tip yAadouevov, Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. 2 and 7 placed dpec 
again in the textg—xal (6¢~] Elz.: kai oxértw. Against A C D* 8* 17, 31, 39, 
al. Suspected by Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 
Delitzsch, Alford. oxé7 was introduced from the LXX. Deut. iv. 11, v. 22.— 
Ver. 19.-In place of the Recepta spoote#7vat, Lachm. in the stereotype edition 
had-adopted zpooOei vat,-after A. Rightly, however, has he retained the 
Recepta in the larger Edicion, This reading is borne out by C D K L 8, by, as it 
seems, all the cursives and many Fathers—Ver. 20. After A. 00BoAndjoeras, 
Eiz. adds further: 7 Bodids catarogevHoerar, Against all uncials (A C D 
K L M 8), most min., all translations, and many Fathers. The words, deleted by 
Griesbach, Scholz, and all later editors, are a gloss from LXX. Ex. xix. 13.—Ver. 
23. Elz.: év ovpavoic axoyeypaupévor, But the decisive testimony of A C 
DLM 8, 37, al. m., Syr. Copt. Vulg. and many Fathers demands the transposi- 
tion adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others: amoye- 
vpapumévar év ovpavoic—Ver, 24, Kpeitrov Aadovvte] Elz.: kpeittova Aadowvv- 
rt. Against AC DK LM¥8&, most min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Sahid. Armen. Vulg. 
al., and many Fathers.—Ver. 25. Elz.: fgvyov ror éri tHE yHo TapalTyoa- 
wevol YpnuaTiCovra, TOAA® waddoyv, Instead of this, however, we have te 


CHAP XT el. 699 


read, with Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. (who, however, in the edit. vii. has 
given the preference to the verbum simplex é¢vyoyv, over the verbum composi- 
tum égépvyov) Alford: éFépvyov eri yHo wapactyodpmevor Tov ypnmati- 
Covra, ToAv wadAdor, in that éFéguyov (already approved by Grotius) is de- 
manded by A C &* 57, 118, al. (Vulg. D, Lat. Slav. Epiph. in cant. cantic.: 
effugerunt), Cyr. Chrys. Philo Carpas. Oecum.; the deleting of the article r#e¢ 
before y7¢ (already omitted in the Editt. Erasm. Complut. Colin., afterwards also 
by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Scholz) is required by all the uncial mss. (including 
&), most min., and very many Fathers; further, the placing of the article rév 
only after tapa:tyoduevoe is required by A C D M®* Cyril. Damasc.; finally, 
ToAb is required by A C D* 8, Sahid.—Ver. 26. Elz.: ceio. But A C MX, 6, at 
al., Svr. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Slav. Athan. Cyril. Cosm. Andr. Areth. have ceicw. 
Approved by Grotius, recommended by Griesb., rightly adopted by Lachm. Scholz, 
Bleek, Tisch. Alford, Reiche—Ver. 27. Recepta: TOv Gahevopévov THY meTa- 
Jeorv. Better accredited, however (by A C &*), is Lachmann’s order of the 
words: T7v TOV Gadevouévwv weTabeccy, which on that account is to be pre- 
ferred. Bleek and Tisch. 1 have entirely rejected the article t7v. It is wanting, how- 
ever, only in D* and M.—Ver. 28. The reading é youev, which Calvin, Mill (Pro- 
legg. 750), Heinrichs, and others approve, and which Luther also followed in his 
translation, is unsuitable, and insufficiently attested by K &, more than twenty min., 
most mss. of the Vulg., Aeth. Cyr. Antioch.,while the reading é yoev rests upon the 
testimony of AC DL M, ete., Copt. Syr. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., as 
also ams. of the Vulg.—In that likewise which follows, the indicative Aatpetouer, 
which Griesbach has placed on the inner margin, stands in point of external 
attestation below the Recepta Aatpevwmuev, The former is found in K M 8, about 
fifty min., with Athan., in mss. of Chrys., with Oecum. and Theophyl. On the 
other hand, A C D L, very many min. and many Fathers have AaTpetwuev— 
At the close of the verse the Recepta reads: eta aidoic kai evAaBeiag 
instead of which, however, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, to 
adopt the reading (recommended also by Griesb.): weTa evAaBeiac Kai déove, 
after A C D* 8* 17, 71, 73, 80, 1387, Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. (al.: pera déove Kai 
evAaBeiac. WVulg.: cum metu et reverentia. D, Lat.: cum metu et verecundia). 


Vv. 1-13. In possession of such a multitude of examples, and with the 
eye uplifted to Jesus Himself, are the readers with stedfastness to main- 
tain the conflict which lies before them, and to regard their sufferings as 
a salutary chastisement on the part of that God who is full of fatherly love 
towards them. 

Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note LXXVIIL., pages 722-724.] Conclusion 
from the total contents of chap. xi—In the animating summons expressed 
vv. 1, 2, the addition dv iropovjc, appended to the main verb rpéyouev, has 
the principal stress; comp. x. 36, xi.1. Of the participial clauses, hows 
ever, the first and third are of the same kind, and are distinguished in equal 
degree from the second ; asaccordingly the former are introduced by par- 
ticiples of the present, the latter by a participle of the aorist. The first and 
third contain a ground of animation to the dv trouorae rpéyopuerv; by the 
second, on the other hand, the historic preliminary condition to the de 
brouovac tpéyev is stated. The euphonious rovyapoiy elsewhere in the 


700 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


N. T. only 1 Thess. iv. 8. [UX XVIII a.J—xai jueic} we also, namely, like 
the saints of the Old Covenant described chap. xi.—rooovrov éyovtes mepe 
Keimevov juiv védog paptipov] [LX XVIII b.] since we have so great a cloud of 
witnesses around us, or: since so great a cloud of witnesses surrounds us. 
éyovreg weptkeimevov is intimately connected together, and is a peri- 
phrasis of the mere verbal notion, inasmuch as a genitive absolute : tocob- 
Tov mepiKsyuévov juiv x.T.4., might have been employed instead. védoc isa 
figurative designation (also of frequent occurrence with classical writers) 
of a densely compact crowd.1—Those meant by the rocotrov védog 
aptvpov are the persons mentioned chap. xi. [LX XVIII c.] When, 
however, these are characterized as a cloud of witnesses, the author does 
not intend to imply that these witnesses are present as spectators at the 
contest to be maintained by the readers,? but represents them thereby as 
persons who have borne testimony for the tiorv¢ which he demands of 
his readers,’ and who consequently have become models for imitation to 
the readers as regards this virtue. 

To this signification of waprépwr points with necessity the whole reason- 
ing immediately foregoing. For as 6? trouovic, xii. 1, attaches again the 
discourse to trouova¢ yap éxete ypeiay x.7.A., X. 86, 80 also the contents of 
chap. xi., which stand in close connection with the latter, are recapitulated 
by the words: roootrov éyovtec Tepikeipevov nuiv védoe paptipwr. On account, 
however, of this close connection of the first participial clause, xii. 1, with 
chap. Xi., waptipwv cannot be otherwise interpreted than after the analogy 
of the characterization there made: paprupySévtec 61a THE TioTEws, X1. 89; év 
Tatty guaptupndnoav xi. 2; dv He éuaptrpyIn, Xi. 4; and peyapripyrar, xi. 5, in 
that only the slight distinction is made, justified in a natural manner by 
the varying form of designation, that while the persons named were 
before represented as those to whom a laudatory testimony was given in 
scripture on account of the ziste manifested by them, they now appear 
as those who, by their conduct, have delivered a testimony in favor of 
their virtue of xiorc, and consequently have become patterns of the same 
for others. On acéount of this intimate coherence of the first participial 
clause, xil..1, with chap. xi.,a more nearly-defining addition, ric micTewe 
to paptipwr, was, moreover, superfluous. That, however, apripwv is in 
reality employed with reference to the riorc¢ whieh the author demands 
of his readers, is further shown by rie riotewc, xii. 2, from which it is 
clearly apparent that the notion ziorc is still before the mind of the 


1Theodoret: tAHO0s TocovTov, véhos pLmov- 2Hammond, Calmet, BOhme, Paulus, Klee, 
pevov TH muKvdTyTe. Comp. Hom. Il. iv. 274: Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, 
Ga. S& védos etmeto megav, al. Ewrip. Hec. 901 Bloomfield, Bisping, Hofmann. 
f.: totov ’EAAdvwv vépos audi oe KpuTTet. 3The supposition of Delitasch, Riehm 
Phoeniss. 1328 ff.: métep’ é€uavtov H mod (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 757), Alford, 
orévw Saxpicas, nv mépé Exer véhos TooodTov, Maier, and Moll, that in waprvpwy, ver. 1, the 


@ate SU ’Ayxépovtos iévar; Herod. vili. 109: idea of “spectators” blends with that of 
védos tocodTov av@pwrwv. Similarly also is “witnesses to the faith,” bears its refutation 
the Latin nubes employed. Comp. e. g. Liv. upon the face of it. For the combining of 


35. 49: rex contra peditum equitumque that which is logically irreconcilable is not . 
nabes jactat. exegesis. 


CHAP. XIie 1. 701 


writer at ver. 2. It is therefore to be supposed that the discourse turns 
round to the figure of the race—to which, indeed, repixeiuevov would 
already be appropriate, but to which this participle is not at all of 
necessity to be referred—only with éyxov arobéuevor «.7.A.—dyKov aro8émevor 
navta] having put off every hindrance (opposed to the context, Bengel and 
others: every kind of pride or arrogance ; Hofmann: all earthly care and 
sorrow). The man contending in the race avoided, in order to keep his 
body light, oppressive clothing and the like. In the application, the 
clinging of the readers to external Judaism is certainly, in particular, 
thought of as the hindrance. Yet the expression is quite general, and sin 
in the strict sense of the term, which is immediately after quite specially 
emphasized, is likewise included thereunder. For «ai is not, with 
Grotius and others, to be taken explicatively, but further brings into relief, 
in the form of a parallel classification, a definite species, taken, on account 
of its special importance, out of the before-named genus.—Sin is termed 
evrepiotatoc. [LXXVIII d.] This adjective exists only here in the 
whole range of Greek literature. It is most naturally derived from the 
middle voice: repiicracda:, to place oneself round, or encompass. The sense 
is therefore: sin, which easily surrounds us and takes us captive. So the 
majority. Others derived evrepictatoe from the active epiotyu, then 
taking the word either in a passive or active sense. The explanation of 
Ernesti (ad. Hesych. gloss. sacr. p. 140 sq.), that “as zepioratov denotes that 
which is thronged about by people who come to admire it, and azepioraroe 
is said of a man about whom others do not stand, thus, who is destitute of 
friends ; so evrepioratog characterizes sin as rich in friends and patrons, as 
generally esteemed and liked,” has against it the consideration that from 
evtepioratoc, in this acceptation, the idea of that which is public and mani- 
fest is inseparable; but this idea is out of keeping with the notion of sin, 
which is just as often perpetrated in secret as in public. The interpreta- 
tion: sin, which is easily to be gone round, encircled, or avoided,' would yield 
an unsuitable thought, since it could not possibly be the design of the 
author to represent the power of sin as small. The active explanation : 
seductive or enticing,’ has against it the fact that all the other derivatives 
from iornuw, such as oraréc, dotatoc, etc., have an intransitive or passive 
signification. Others, again, in their explanations of eirepicratoc, follow 
the significations of the substantive tepicracie: sin, which easily plunges us 
into danger ;* which brings with it many hindrances ;* which has circum- 
stantias (surroundings), whereby it commends itself and seduces us ; > quae bonis 
utitur rebus circumstantibus, i.e. quae habet suisque affert bonam fortunam 
atque voluptates (B6hme).—The duapria is sin in general; not specially : 


1Chrysostom: Thy evKOAwWs Tepiotaciy 2 Carpzov, Schulz, Stein. 


Suvamévnv mabety A€yer* waAAov SE TOVTO" padvov 
yap, €av OéAwmev, wepryeveaOar [get the better 
of | Ts amaprias; Pseudo-Athanasius, de para- 
bol. Script. quaest. 133: evmepiotatov eine thy 
apaptiav, émedav movimov oTaoLv ovK ExeL, 
adAa TaXews TpémETAaL Kai KaTaAdveTar ; Clericus, 
Morus, Ewald, p. 172. 


3 Er. Schmid, Raphel, Bengel, Storr; comp. 
already Theophylact: 7 &v nv evxdAws tis ets 
TEPLOTATELS EuTinTer’ OVdEY yap OUTH KLWduUVadeES 
@s apmaprtia. 

4Kypke, Michaelis, Dindorf, Heinrichs, 
Kuinoel, Bioomfield. 

5 Hammond. 


702 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the sin of apostasy from Christianity. On account of aobéugvo., the duaptia 
is thought of as a burden which we bear within us as a propensity, or about 
us as an encumbering garment.—tpixew ayava] to run a race.—d’ iroporgc] 
Rom. viii. 25. 

Ver. 2. Second factor in the encouragement. Not only the example of 
the O. T. witnesses for the faith, but also the example of the Beginner and 
Perfecter of the faith, Christ Himself, must animate us to a persevering 
rpéxewv.—agopavrec] [LX XVIII e.] in that we look forth (for our encourage- 
ment and for our ardent imitation). dgopav (as, immediately after, 
reAecwthc) only here in the N. T.—eig tov tie riotewe apyyyov Kat redewryv 
‘Tyoow] [LX XVIII f.] to the Beginner and Perfecter of the faith, Jesus, i. e 
to Jesus, who has begun or awakened in us the Christian faith, and carries 
it on in us to perfection, or to the close (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Erasmus, and the majority), which last particular then naturally 
includes the attaining of salvation. But it is going too far when one 
finds—as Grotius, Bloomfield, and many others—in redewrjc the figure of 
the SpaBevrjc, the judge or umpire of the games, who, on the completion 
of the contest, awards the prize of victory; for the expression itself does 
not warrant this special application. According to Bengel, Baumgarten, 
Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. z. 
Darmst. Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 667), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. 
March 1858, p. 208 f.), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 326), Maier, 
Moll, Kurtz,—comp. also Theodoret: Kara rd avéporwov auddbrepa rébeter, 
—éb the Tiotewe apynyde Kai TeAewTye ’Iyootc has the sense: Jesus, who 


in manifestation of the faith has preceded us by His example, and in the mani-- 


festation of this faith has carried on the work unto perfection.’ But the virtue 
of faith the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not possibly 
predicate of Christ in like manner as he does of the Christians. From the 
lofty conception he had of the person of the Redeemer, he must, like the 
Apostle Paul, regard Him by whom the divine decrees of salvation were 
to be realized, as object of the riot. More than this, reAecwr#¢ can be used 
only transitively, not also intransitively. ap ynyoc Ti miotews stands, 
therefore, in a sense quite analogous to that of the apynyi¢ tH oarnpiac, 
ii. 10; and the exemplary characteristic in Jesus, to which the author 
directs his readers, is not already expressed by His being designated as 
apynyoe Kat TeAewthe tHe Tiotewe,—which, on the contrary, is only designed 
to make us aware of the assistance which Christ affords the Christians in 
the rpéyew,—but first és expressed by means of the following relative 
clause.—avt? tHe mpoxeyuévne ait yapac] who for the (heavenly) joy lying 
ready for Him, the obtaining of which should be the reward of His suffer- 


1Comp. Herod. viii. 102; Dion. Hal. vii. 48; Tews TEeAELWTHS. The sense is supposed to 
Eurip. Orest. 875. be: “Jesus is the Prince of faith: for upon 


2Inconsistently does Delitzsch adhere to 
this explanation (and similarly Alford and 
Kluge),—in reference, indeed, to the notion 
0 THS Tictews APXHYOs,—but rejects it in 
reference to the notion, necessarily com- 
bining in homogeneity therewith, 0 ts mic- 


the path on which faith has to run, He has 
gone first to open the way; He is faith’s Com- 
pleter: for upon this path He leads us to the 
goal.” That Jesus Himself reached the goal 
upon this path, is then supposed to be an 
unuttered intermediate thought (!). 


CHAP.; XIf, 2,3; 703 


ings! avri, as ver. 16. For yapda, however, comp. Matt. xxv. 21. Com- 
prehended under the zpoxejuévy ait@ yapa is also the joy over the com- 
pleted work of redemption, with its blessings for mankind; yet it is 
erroneous, with Theodoret (yapa dé tov cwripoc tov avOparwv 7 cwtnpia), to 
limit it thereto. The sense is not: instead of the heavenly glory which He 
already had as the premundane Logos, and which He might have retained, but 
which He gave up by His incarnation” Nor is it: instead of the earthly free- 
dom from. suffering, which, as the sinless One, He could have procured for 
Himself ;? or: instead of the joys of the world, which Jesus, had He willed tt, 
could have partaken of For the immediate concern of the author must 
evidently be to point to the prize which Christ was to receive in return 
for His sufferings, in order thereupon further to indicate that to the 
readers likewise, upon their persevering in the conflict, the palm of 
victory will not be wanting. A further consideration is, that also the 
closing member of the verse, which is closely attached by means of ré to 
that which precedes, has for its subject-matter still the thought of the 
reward conferred upon Christ.—iréuewev oravpdv, aicyivyc Katadpovicac | 
endured the cross, in that He contemned the infamy. For the death of the 
cross was crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium (Cic. Verr. 5. 64).—év 
deEta Te Tov Apdvov Tov Aeod KexdOucev] and has sat down at the right hand of 
the throne of God. [LXXVIII g.] Comp. i. 8, viii. 1, x. 12. 

Ver.3. [On Vy. 3-11, see Note LX XIX., pages 724, 725.] Tap] is here, on 
account of the imperative, the corroborative: Yea / [LX XIX a.] (comp. 
Winer, p. 415 f.) [E. T. 446]; and dvadoyifecda:, in the N. T. a drag 
Aeyéuevov, denotes the comparing or reflecting contemplation. Bengel: Com- 
paratione instituta cogitate: Dominus tanta tulit; quanto magis servi 
ferant aliquid ?—avrci20yia, however, denotes nothing else than contradic- 
tion; and what is meant is, the contending against Christ’s divine Sonship 
and Messianic dignity. [LX XIX 6.] The notion of opposition and ill- 
usage in act, which is ordinarily assigned to it (still also by Bohme, Bleek, 
de Wette, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and Maier) along with 
that of contradiction, this word never has. Even avrcidéyecv, to which 
appeal is made, has nowhere the sense of a hostile resistance manifesting 
itself in outward actions. See Meyer on Luke ii. 34; John xix. 12; 
Rom. x. 21.—rovabryv] such, i.e. one so great, sc. that He was compelled 
to undergo the ignominious death of the cross (ver. 2), in comparison with 
which your sufferings are something insignificant.—iva pi Kduyre x.7.2.] 
that ye may not grow weary, desponding in your souls. taic wuyaic 
tuov is to be conjoined with éxAvépuevor,> not with kdyyre,® since other- 


1So Primasius, Piscator, Schlichting, Gro- 
tius, Bengel, Whitby, Schulz, Béhme, Stuart, 
Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 357), Al- 
ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, 
and the majority. 

2Peshito, Gregory Nazianz. in Oecum.: 3 
efov pevery emt THs idias Soéns TE Kati OedTyTOS, 
ov wovoy éavTov exévwoev axpt THs SovAou 
opens, aAAa Kai oTavpoy vméemervev K.T.A.; 


Beza, Nemethus, Heinrichs, Ewald. 
3Chrysostom, Oecumenius, »Theophylact, 
Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Caloy, al. 
4Calvin, Wolf, Carpzov, Stein, Bisping, al. 
5Beza, Er. Sehmid, Hammond, Kuinoel, 
Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitasch, 
Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, al. 
6Luther, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, 
Schulz, B6hme, and others. 


704 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


wise something of a dragging character would be imparted to the par- 
ticiple. 

Ver. 4 ff. [LX XIX c.] The sufferings which have come upon the 
readers are only small, and a salutary chastisement at the hand of God— 
Oirw péxpec aimatog K.7.A.] Not yet unto blood, i.e. to such extent that blood- 
shed should result, that a martyr’s death! among you should be a necessity 
(as such death had but just now been mentioned of the O. T. saints, chap. 
xi., and of Christ Himself, xii. 2), have ye offered resistance in your contest 
against sin. The author has, as x. 32 ff., only the present generation of 
Palestinian Christians, to whom he is speaking, before his eyes. It is 
otherwise at xill. 7.—rpod¢ tiv duapriav] belongs to davraywri{duevor (against 
Bengel, who conjoins it with dvricaréoryre), and 4 dyapria stands not in 
the sense of of duaptwdoi, ver. 8,’-—for there would exist no reason for the 
avoiding of this concrete expression,*—but is the inner sin, conceived of 
as a hostile power or person, which entices the man (visited with suffer- 
ings and persecutions) to an apostasy from Christianity. Comp. azary 
The auapriac, Wi. 18—In avrixatéotyte avtaywrviléuevor—both verbs in 
the N. T. only here—the author has, what is wrongly denied by de Wette 
and Maier (in like manner as Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 26), passed over from the 
figure of the race to the kindred one of the combat with the fists. 

Vv. 5, 6. Kai éxAéAnofe «.7.4.] [LX XIX d.] And have ye forgotten, etc.? 
The words are most naturally to be taken‘ as a question. If we would, 
as is usually done, take them as an assertory statement (“and ye have 
forgotten ’’), the reproach contained in the same would come out more 
strongly than is consonant with the mild character of the discourse in this 
section. The verb éxAav@dvecas, as presently after 64cywp eiv, in the 
N. T. only here.—rj¢ rapaxiajoewc| the consolation (or else: the animating 
address).—jri¢ tiv d¢ vioig diaréyera] which, of a truth, speaks to you as to 
sons. By virtue of #rv¢ (in place of which there is no sufficient ground 
for writing, with Hofmann, 7 tic) the following consolatory utterance 
(Yié . . . wapadéyerar), adduced from Prov. iii. 11, 12,—from which also 
Philo, de congresstt quaer. erudit. gr. p. 449 D (with Mangey, I. p. 544 f,), 
reasons in’ a similar manner,—is presupposed as one sufficiently familiar 


1Wrongly'is it supposed by Holtzmann 
(Stud-u. Krit. 1859, H. 2, p. 301; Ztscehr. f. wiss. 
Theol. 1867, p. 4) that a reminder of a martyr- 
dem not yet endured is remote from the con- 
nection. The discourse is said to be of a re- 
sistance mpos Thy auaptiay. Sin, in this con- 
flict with the flesh, would not allow it to be 
continued unto blood. For this very reason 
it is necessary to resist sin péxpis almaros, 
ever anew to reanimate the weary limbs for 
the continuance of the conflict (xii. 12), In 
the same manner, too, does Kurtz find only 
a proverbial figurative expression for an 
earnest, decided, and unsparing resistance to 
the sinful desire in peéypis atmatos. But 
though in German “bis auf’s Blut” (even to 
blood) has proverbial figurative acceptance 


in the sense of “to the very uttermost,” yet 
assuredly neither aia nor yet sanguis is any- 
where else employed in this proverbial sense. 
2Carpzoyv, Heinrichs, Stuart, Ebrard, De- 
litzsch, Maier, Kluge, Grimm in the Ztschr. 
f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 43, al. 
3 At least no one will recognize as apposite 


‘that which Ebrard adduces as such,—to wit, 


that in ver. 3 “the whole (!) of mankind as 
the sinners (the class of sinners) might be 
opposed to Christ; whereas to the readers of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, who were them- 
selves apaptwAoi, the enemies of Christianity 
could not be opposed as the sinners.” 

4With Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, 
Braun, Jos. Hallet, Heinrichs, Bohme, Stuart,- 
Lachmann, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Ewald. 


CHAP. XII. 5—9. 7085 


to the readers. By dcadéyera., however, the same is personified; 
since dcatéyeotai tive denotes conversing with any one (here, as it were, 
the answering in reply to the complaint breathed forth by the readers} 
Yié wou] With the LXX. only: Yié—pq ddcyoper raideiac Kvpiov] despise not 
chastening from the Lord, i.e. be thankful for it, when the Lord chastens 
thee.—y7dé éxAbov in aitov éeyxouevoc] nor despond when thou art corrected 
of Him (by means of sufferings which He imposes upon thee). 

Ver. 6. Tladeier] him He chasteneth. So in the LXX. Cod. A, and fifteen 
other mss. The remaining manuscripts of the LXX. have, what is 
probably the original reading: éAéyyer—paortiyot dé ravta vidv bv rapa- 
déxera] and scourges every son whom He receives (adopts as His). Accord- 
ing to present punctuation, the words in Hebrew read: 37) “S-AN 3833, 
and (He chastens) as a father the son in whom he delights. Instead of 
383, the LXX., however, read 282, (to cause pain). 

Vv. 7, 8. Application of the word of scripture to the readers.—Ei 
raeiav drouévere] [LXXIX e.] If we endure chastening. The opposite of 
this is formed by the ei d2 ywpic éore raideiac, ver. 8. The emphasis falls, 
therefore, upon wacdeiav; and to explain iropévecv as a “stedfast” or 
“persevering ” enduring? is inadmissible.—dé¢ vioic tuiv mpoodéperar 6 Oed¢] God 
deals with you as with sons, treats you as sons. By as harsh a construction 
as possible (comp. tyiv dc vioic, ver. 5), Ebrard will have éc taken as a 
conjunction, and translates,—espousing the incorrect reading (see the 
critical obs.) cic raideiav,—“ for your instruction endure manfully, even as 
(or when, so long as) God offers Himself to you as to sons !”—For the genuine 
Greek formula zpocgépec dai tive, which does not occur elsewhere in 
the N. T., see examples in Wetstein.—ric yap vide k.7.2.] sc. éoriv: for what 
son is there, t.e. where is there a son, whom the father chastens not? This 
comprehending together of ric vide (Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, 
Maier, Kurtz, Ewald) is more natural than that one should regard ric 
alone as the subject: who is indeed a son, whom, etc. (Delitzsch, Moll, and 
others); or, with Béhme, as the predicate: of what kind is a son, 
whom, ete. 

Ver. 8. Ei dé ywpic éore xaideiac] If, on the other hand, ye are free from 
chastisement (have been spared it).2—je uéroyou yeyévacow révtec] of which 
all (sc. whom God—like the saints. of the O. T. enumerated chap. xi.—has 
really acknowledged as His sons‘ have become partakers. That the relative 
clause contains no statement of entirely universal import, applicable also 
to the relation towards the earthly fathers (Camerarius, Beza, Limborch, 
al.), but, on the contrary, one affecting exclusively the relation towards 
God, is clear from the parallel with ver. 7,as well as from the perfect 
yeyévactv.—v6sor] bastards, begotten out of wedlock, for whose weal or 
woe their father is not wont to be greatly concerned. 

Vv. 9, 10, a second argument follows. The readers must not become 
disheartened at the sufferings imposed upon them. For not only is there 


1 Theodoret, Erasm: Paraphr., Stein, Ebrard, 2Wrongly Theodoret: et roivuy Kai wdmets 
Bloomfield, a’, Thy madetay exxAtvete, 


45 


706 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


vo be seen, in the fact of their having to struggle with afflictions, the 
manifestation that God treats them as His children; it is, moreover, the 
heavenly Father who visits them with this chastening, and that for the very 
reason that He has their own highest good in view.—eira] then, further, 
deinde. Not to be taken as an interrogative particle, with Alberti, Raphel, 
Heinrichs, and others. For otherwise the discourse would have proceeded 
in the second half of the verse with «ai ov oad paA2ov, instead of the 
mere ov roAv paddov. Ingeniously, but without constraining reason, does 
Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 121) conjecture «i te instead of eira, while 
quite unsuitably Hofmann will comprehend ¢ira with the closing words 
of ver. 8.—rov¢e tH¢ capKdo¢ tuav ratépac] fathers of our flesh, i.e. our bodily, 
earthly fathers.—eiyouev madevtag Kai évetperdueda] we had as chasteners, 
and heeded them, i.e. we gave heed when we had them as chasteners. 
Inasmuch as the author is addressing grown-up persons, the imperfects 
characterize the period of the bygone youth (we used to give heed). The 
combining of évtpém eadar, however, with the accusative of the object is in 
later Greek style the ordinary one. With the earlier authors the genitive 
is used.—The absolute statement cita . .. évetperéueda takes the 
place of a hypothetical premiss (comp. x. 28 f.; 1 Cor. vii. 18, 21, al.), and 
the whole verse contains an argument a minore ad majus.—ov 702d padAov 
broraynobueSa TO Katpl Tov Tvevudtwv Kai Choouev;] shall we not much rather 
be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and (i.e. so that we in consequence 
thereof) live? By 6 ratyp tov rvevudtor naturally God is meant. 
With Hammond, to think of Christ, is forbidden by the connection (comp. 
ver. 7). To the Father of spirits, ie. God, who is Father in regard to the 
higher spiritual domain of life. That God, as the Creator of all things, is 
the Final Cause also of the bodily life of man, is a fact not excluded by 
the expression; only that which is the main thing as concerns God’s 
fatherly relation is here emphasized. 6 rarjp tov rvevudtov does not desig- 
nate God as Creator of the souls, in the sense of Creatianism as opposed 
to Traducianism.! Nor as the One who makes provision for our souls.’ 
Just as little is wbuata to be understood of the angels or the gifts of the 
Spirit Itis possible there was present to the mind of the author the 
characterization of God, LX X. Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16, as a Sede tov mvrev- 
HaTwv Kal. Taon¢ capKdc.—Kai Choouev| Declaration of the result of this 
obedience, in the form of a parallel arrangement. ¢7v of the enjoy- 
ment of the everlasting life of bliss, as x. 88; Rom. viii. 18, and frequently. 
Ver. 10. Justification of the road paAdrov, ver. 9, by presenting in relief 
the diversity of character borne by the disciplinary correction of the 
earthly fathers from that of the heavenly Father. The emphasis falls 
upon xara 7d dokovv avroic andupon émi 7d oupugépor, while rpo¢ 


1Calvin, Estius, Justinian, Beza, Jac. Cap- } TOV agwuatwv Svvapmewr. 
pellus, Drusius, Carpzov, Delitzsch, Riehm, 4Theodoret: marépa mvevuatwv Tov mvevpa- 
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 678; Kurtz, al. TiKOvY TaTépa KEKAnKEY WS TOY TVEVMATLKOV 
2Morus, Dindorf, Kuinoel, Béhme, and Xapiopatwv mnynv. Comp. Chrysostom, Oecu- 
others. menius, and Theophylact. 


8Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact: 


CHAP, xi, 10; 11. 707 


dAiyag #uépac is an unaccentuated addition, which belongs equally to 
both members of the sentence.! For if mpo¢ odiyac nuépac belonged only 
to the first member, and served for the indication of a further particular 
of diversity, an antithetic addition corresponding to the same could not 
have been wanting in the second member. But to find such antithesis? 
in ei¢ 7d petadaBeiv «.7.A., is Inadmissible, since these words are only an 
epexegetical amplification of émi 1d ovugépov. Upo¢ ohiyag ymépag 
[LXXIX /.] denotes, therefore, not the period of the earthly life, brief in 
comparison with eternity,? in such wise that the thought would be 
expressed, that the earthly fathers aimed in connection with the sadebew 
at a benefit or gain merely in regard to the earthly lifetime ; God, on the 
other hand, at a gain for eternity,—by which at any rate a false opposition 
would arise, since the first half of the statement could not be at all con- 
ceded as a universally valid truth. Rather do the words affirm that the 
chastisement on the part of the natural fathers (and not less that on the 
part of the heavenly Father) continued only a few days, lasted only during 
a brief period. In a sense quite corresponding is spé¢ employed imme- 
diately after, ver. 11, as well as 1 Cor. vii. 5; 2 Cor. vii. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 17, 
and very frequently elsewhere.—xata 7d doxodv aidroic] according to their 
judgment, which was not always an erroneous one.—The imperfect éxaidevov 
stands there for the same reason as the imperfects, ver. 9.—é dé] sc. mpoc 
Odiyac Huépac Tadever.—énl Td ovudépov | with a view to that which is salutary 
(our infallible welfare).—eic 16 peradaBeiv tHe aytétyTo¢ avtov] in order that 
we may be made partakers of His holiness, may become eyer more free from 
sin, and in moral purity ever more like God Himself. 

Ver. 11. The blessing of every chastening. Comp. Diog. Laert. v. 18 (cited 
by Wetstein): r7¢ madeiac én (se. Aristotle) rag pév pilac elvar mixpac, yAvkeic 
dé Tove Kaprove.—raca raideia] comprises the human and the divine chasten- 
ing; yet the author in connection with the second clause (torepov dé k.7.2..) 
has no doubt mainly the latter before his mind.—zpéi¢ pév 7d rapdv x.7.A.] 
seems indeed for the present (so long as it continues) to be no object of joy, but 
an object of grief; later, however (i.e. when it has been outlived), it yields to 
those who have been exercised by it (comp. v. 14) the peace-fraught fruit of 
righteousness.—doxei] characterizes the opinion of man; since the matter 
is in reality very different.—d:catosivyc| [LX XIX g.] Genitive of apposition : 
peaceful fruit, namely righteousness, i.e. moral purity and perfection. It 
is called a peaceful fruit because its possession brings with it peace of soul. 
dixacocbvvyc is not to be understood as a genitivus subjecti (Piscator, Owen, 
Stuart, Heinrichs, Stein, and others): a@ peaceful fruit which is yielded by 


1Riehm’s objection to this (Lehrbegr. des 
Hebréerbr. p. 762, Obs.), that in such case kata 
To Soxovy avtocs Must have been placed before 
mpos oAcyas nuépas, is entirely without weight. 
Just the preposing of mpds oAcyas méepas was, 
if these words were to be referred to both 
members of the sentence, the most appro- 
priate order; because xata 70 doxody avrois 
and émi To cuudépov then as contrasts stood 


in so much the more immediate opposition 
to each other in the two halves of the sen- 
tence. 

2 With Bengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
Hofmann, and others. 

3Calvin, Estius, Justinian, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Schlichting, Limborch, Er. Schmid, 
Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, 
Kluge, al. 


708 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


righteousness ; for surely racdeia is mentioned as the subject producing the 
KapTo¢ elpnveKoc. 

Vv. 12,18. [On Vy. 12-17, see Note LX XX., pages 725, 726.] Animating 
conclusion of the exhortation to stedfastness continued up to this point. 
—0éw] Wherefore, sc. because the sufferings you have to undergo manifest 
to you that ye are sons of God, and are salutary for you.—ra¢ rapexévac 
xelpag Kai Ta TapaseAuuéva yovata avopbacare| make firm again the slackened 
hands and the weary knees.\—avop$oir] literally, to make the crooked straight 
again ; then in general to restore anything to its original right or perfect 
condition. [Cf. Luke xiii. 18; Acts xv. 16.] 

Ver. 18. Kai tpoyiic opbac roioate toic rociv tuav] and make straight 
tracks with your feet, 7. e. advance with straight course upon the Christian 
path of life you have once entered upon, without bending aside to the 
right or to the left; that is to say, without mingling up that which is 
Jewish with that which is Christian, or suffering yourselves to be enticed 
to a relapse into Judaism. Incorrectly do Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm 
(Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 789), Alford, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, 
M’Caul, Hofmann, and others explain toi¢ rociv ivov: for your feet. For, 
apart from the fact that this interpretation destroys the harmony with the 
figure employed at ver. 12, that of the rapewévac yeipec and mapareduuéva 
yévara, the author cannot possibly intend to say that the readers them- 
selves have first to prepare the way for themselves. The way has 
already been prepared for them by Christ (x. 20), and it is now only a 
question of their making advance upon the same in the right way. 
[LXXX 6.]—For the expression, which accidentally forms a hexa- 
meter? (see Winer, p. 595 [E. T. 641]), comp. LXX. Prov. iv. 26: 
opbac Tpoxidce Tote: coi¢ Toci.—iva py TO Yworov éExtparh, tab Jé paAdov] that 
not (even) that which is lame may turn aside from the way, but rather be 
healed. 76 yodév denotes not the suffering member in an individual, but 
within the larger community, thus the member of the Christian commu- 
nion who is lame or halting, 7.e. who makes only a tottering progress in 
Christianity, and falls away from the same if he does not gain a support 
in the rest of the community advancing in a straight course [Gal. 11. 14]. 
On 7d ywrsr, as. figurative- designation of the wavering between two 
different bents of belief, comp. LXX.1 Kings xviii. 21: éwe rére ipeic 
yoraveire éx’ apugotépate taic iyviac; how long do ye halt upon both knee-joints- 
(sides), 7.e. do ye hesitate between the service of Jehovah and that of 
Baal?—To the verb éxtpéxeocda:, Fr. Junius, Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, 
Heinrichs, and many others, finally Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Kurtz, 
Ewald, on account of the opposition iadq 6% naAdov, assign the passive 
signification : to be dislocated. But justified by the usage of the language 


1Comp. LXX. Isa. xxxy. 3: toxvoate xetpes KUPLWTEpwv Ep@V, OTL GAOL TapELpmevoL Eliot TH 


aveievat Kai yovata mapadcAvpéeva. Ecclus. ux ai wév yap xelpes evepyetas, ot dé modes 
XXYV. 23: Yelpes Tapemevar Kal yovTa Tapa- kuvygews avpBodov. 

AcAvweva. Comp. also Deut. xxxii. 36: elde yap 2Quite improbable is the supposition of 
mapadcAumevous avTovs Kal . . . Tapetpéevous.— Ewald (pp. 139, 172), that the words consist of 


Theophylact: Sexviwy amd metahopas tay a verse which “was derived from some one’ 


CHAP. XI 1-15: 709 


ysee Wetstein at 1 Tim. i. 6) is the middle signification alone: bend aside 
(from the way), turn aside. This signification is therefore to be maintained 
here also, and ia¥@ dé waAdov continues in an abbreviated form the 
figure employed, in that its meaning is: but rather through the animating 
example given by the whole body, may be cured of his wavering; and briskly 
advance with the rest. 

Vv. 14-17. Ecxhortation to concord and to growth in holiness. 

Ver. 14. Mera rdvtwv] with all, even the non-Christians. [LX XX c.] 
Comp. Rom. xii.18. For limiting the taévrec¢, with Michaelis, Zachariae, 
Storr, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, 
to the members of the Christian community, there exists no reason; and it 
has against it the mode of expression, since we should then have expected 
bet’ GAAGAwY.—xal Tov dyacudv] the general virtue, of which the endeavor 
after concord is only a particular outflow. dycaouéc, namely, is here 
sanctification or moral purification in general ; too restricted is the reference 
of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus, 
Bengel, Bloomfield, and others, who explain it as—what at 1 Thess. iv. 3 
(see at that place) is certainly the correct explanation—the virtue of 
chastity —rov kipiwov] By this expression some understand God (comp. 
Matt. v. 8), others Christ (comp. ix. 28). A certain decision is impossible. 
The beholding represents in an emblematic manner the idea of innermost 
union, and the whole is a designation of the Messianic blessedness in the 
consummated kingdom of God. 

Vv. 15,16. Further amplification of diéxere tov dysacudv, ver. 14. That 
endeavor after holiness is not only to be in active exercise in the case of 
each one with regard to his own person; it is also, in equal degree, to be 
watchful that the Christian brethren preserve themselves free from im- 
morality.—The subject in éxcoxozovvrec consists, as in dcdxere, ver. 14, 
with which the participle is conjoined, of all members of the congrega- 
tion, not specially the presidents thereof (xiii. 17) or éxioxoroc (BOhme); 
and éxcoxorecv signifies: to direct one’s view to a thing with close attention 
or solicitude.—yy te votepav ard THE yapiToc Tov Heov] is no independent clause, 
so that 7 would have to be supplemented! For the choice of the tempus 
periphrasticum would be here unnatural and justified by nothing.2 The 
words are a mere introducing of the subject, which is then further re- 
sumed by uj tue pita «.7.2.,in such wise that évoy4q forms the common 
predicate to both parts of the sentence introduced by yu4.2—pA tic borepov 
x.7.2.] that no one, in that he remains far from the grace of God, i. e. in that 
he turns the back upon the grace of God which was afforded him in 
Christ, by immorality withdraws from it, and loses it (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10). The 
unusual torepety axé tevoc is consequently by no means equivalent in 





of the many Hellenistic poets (?), whose books deed added in thought, but then have this 


were at that time greatly read even by Chris- explained not as a mere copula, but in the 
tians.” sense: there being present. 

1So the majority, as also BGhme, Tholuck, 3Heinrichs, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, 
Bloomfield, Ebrard, and Maier. Alford, Kurtz, Ewald. 


*Hofmann will on that account have # in- 


710 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


signification to the ordinary iorepeiv revo. While the latter would repre- 
sent the coming short of the possession of the divine grace absolutely, as 
an objective result, the former includes the idea of voluntary activity or 
of one’s own culpability. Comp. Ecclus. vii. 84: uy toréper: ard KAabvruv. 
Analogously stands also the mere torepeiv, Num. ix. 7: pi obv borepfowper 
TpooevéyKkat TO dapov Kupiw. Num. ix. 183: dvOpwroc, bc. . . LoTEphoy Tolqoat TO 
Tagya.— yh Tic pila Tikpiag avw gvovoa évoxAH] that, I say, no root, (plant) of 
bitterness (of which the fruit is bitterness)—7. e. a man! in whom, in conse- 
quence of his unholy walk, the bitter fruit of everlasting perdition is 
ripening—growing up (as in the case of a plant, of which the root was be- 
fore covered with earth) cause trouble or disquiet (to the congregation). The 
words are moulded after the LXX. of Deut. xxix. 18, according to the cor- 
rupted text of the Cod. Alexandr. : pi tic éoriv év bpiv pica Teikpiac avw dvovoa 
évoxah kai wexpia (distorted from the original text contained in the Cod. 
Vatic.: ph te éoriv év byiv pita avo pvovoa év xorH Kai mixpia). That the read- 
ing in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. only arose from a regard to our passage 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Jos. Hallet, Wolf, Delitzsch, Hofmann, and 
others) is not probable, since the author elsewhere in the O. T. citations 
follows the form of text in the Cod. Alex—rixpiac] Chrysostom: ovk ele 
TiKpa, aAAa TiKpiac’ THY udv yap TiKpav pitay ~oTL Kaprod¢ éveyKelv yAvkeic, THY 8 
Tikpiag pilav... ovK éote moré yAvKdy éveyKeiv kaprév’ wavTa yap éoTe TuKpa, ovdev 
Eyer 06, mavta riKpa, Tavta andy, Tavta picove Kai BdeAvypiacg yéuwovta.—évoyAeiv | 
in the N. T. only here (and Luke vi. 18?).—xai dv airig wavbdow oi roAot] 
and by it the many (the multitude orthe great mass) become defiled (namely, 
by infection), z. e. likewise led astray into an unholy walk. Comp. Gal. 
Vaid. 

Ver. 16. My tic répvoc] se. évoxam (comp. ver. 15): that no fornicator 
trouble you. Yet we may, with Grotius, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, 
Maier, Kurtz, and the majority, supplement merely 7: that no one be a for- 
nicator. mépvoc is tobe taken in the natural sense, as xiii. 4. The taking 
of it asa figurative designation of one who is unfaithful to Christ, in order 
to hold unlawful intercourse with Judaism (Bohme, Tholuck, Ebrard, 
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 155, and others), is unsuitable, because 
ver. 16 is nothing else but the continued amplification of the didKere tov 
dylacuov, ver. 14.—# BéBnhoc &¢ ’Hoav] or a profane person (a man of unhal- 
lowed, common mind, centred upon the earthly), as Esau. 6¢ Hoad 
belongs only to Bé37A0c. It is not to be referred also to xépvoc¢ (so still De- 
litzsch and Alford), since nothing is related in s¢ripture concerning a ropveia 
of Esau (more, it is true, the later Rabbis have to tell us; see Wetstein at 
our passage), and the elucidatory relative has respect only to Bé8yA0¢.—éec 
«.7.2.] Comp. Gen. xxy. 33.—avri] indication of the price, as ver. 2.—ra 
nputoréka] the birthright with its privileges. Classic writers employ for it 
7 TpecBeia OY TO TpEcBEior. ; 

Ver. 17. Warning reference to the pernicious result of Esau’s behavior. 
Comp. Gen. xxvii.—iore] not imperative (Vulgate: scitote; Luther: wisset 


1Comp. 1 Mace. i. 10: kai é&#AOev é& adrav piga amaptwrAds, ’Avtioxos ’Emupavys. 


CHAP, xIT, 16547, til 


aber), but indicative, since to the readers as born Jews the fact itself was a 
perfectly familiar one.—6r kai perémecra, Bédov KAypovouqoas tiv evdoyiav, amedo- 
xeacty | that later also, when he wished to inherit (to receive as a possession) the 
blessing, he was rejected. kai accentuates the aredoxiuacby, as the appropri- 
ate natural consequence of the azédoro, ver. 16. 7 ev 20yia, however, is the 
blessing absolutely, ¢. e. the more excellent blessing, which was appointed 
to the first-born as the bearer of the promises given by God to Abraham 
and his seed. To azedox:pacéy, finally, there is naturally supple- 
mented: by Isaac, in consequence of the higher occasioning or leading of God. 
—petavoiac yap Torov ovyx evpev, KaiTeEp wera dakpiwr éxlythoac ati] for he Sound 
no room for change of mind, although he eagerly sought it with tears, i. e. for 
Esau did not succeed in causing his father Isaac to change his mind, so 
that the latter should recall the blessing erroneously bestowed upon the 
younger brother Jacob, and confer it upon himself the elder son; in this 
he succeeded not, though he besought it with tears. [LXXX d.] This ac- 
ceptation of the words, which Beza,' H. Stephanus, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, 
Schlichting, Owen, Er. Schmid, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Wolf, Carpzov, Cra- 
mer, Michaelis, Storr, Schulz, Bbhme, Klee, Paulus, Stengel, Tholuck, Eb- 
rard, Bloomfield, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmst. A. K.-Z. 
1857, No. 29, p. 677), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, March, p. 210), Maier, 
Moll, Kurtz, and others insist on, is most naturally suggested by the con- 
text itself, yields a clear, correct thought, and best accords with the narra- 
tive in Genesis. Comp. LXX. Gen. xxvii. 33: ebAdynoa abrov Kai 
evioynmévoc éotar. Ver. 34: 'Eyévero dé, prika jKovoev "Hoad ra phuata Tow 
Tarpoc aitov "Ioadk, aveBdyoe Gwriv meyaAny Kal TLKpar o¢é6dpa kai cimev" 
evAdynaov Oy Kame Tatep. Ver. 35: Eire dé abro é2Odv 6 adeAgde cov peta 
dédov éAaBe tiv evdAoyiav cov, (It was thus a question not of a blessing in 
general,—that Esau also still received afterwards, comp. yer. 39 f.—but 
about the definite blessing pertaining to the first-born.) Ver.38: Elme dé 
"Hoav mpoc Tov marépa abtov" uy evdoyia pia oot éate TatEp’; ebAdynoov OF Kae TaTEp. 
KaravuyxGévroc dé’ Ioaak (this addition, peculiar to the LXX., accentu- 
ates afresh the fact that Isaac’s resolution remained inflexible, since he re- 
garded the blessing already bestowed as irrevocable), ave Bonoe burg 
"Hoav kai éxdavoev. Nor is that which Bleek, de Wette, and Delitzsch 
have advanced against this mode of interpretation of great force. They 
assert (1) that there is here nowhere any mention of Isaac, so that we can- 
not think of him in connection with jeravoiac either. But a distinct allu- 
sion to Isaac, though not an express mention of him, iscertainly contained 
in that which precedes. Partly in rv eddoyiav, partly in aredoxipdody, there 
is found a reference to him; since it was just he who had to bestow the 
blessing, and afterwards under God’s disposing refused it to Esau. An 
addition of rov zarpéc to weravoiac was therefore unnecessary. (2) That the 
formula: “he found no place or room for a change in the mind of his fa- 
ther,” in the sense: “he could not bring about such change in him,” 


1Yet Beza, as likewise Er. Schmid and reason, abrjy to thy evAoyiav instead of pera- 
Bisping, then refers back, without justifying votas. 


7 Ww THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


would be a very unnatural one. But why, pray, may not rérov peravoia, 
ebpioxew equally well and naturally signify: “to gain room for a perdvoia to 
unfold and assert itself,” as at Acts xxv. 16 rézov arodoyiag AapBaverv signi- 
fies: “to obtain room for an arodoyia to unfold and maintain itself,” or 
rérov didévat TH Opyh, Rom. xii. 19 (comp. Eph. iv. 27): “to give room to the 
divine wrath to unfold itself and make itself felt”? (8) That the expres- 
sion perdvove itself is unsuitable, inasmuch as “this word can surely only 
denote an inner emotion of the mind, but not the bare outward recalling 
of a measure or a verdict ” (Bleek), or, as de Wette expresses himself, “in 
the N. T. is ordinarily employed of human penitence.” Nevertheless 
there attaches likewise to the notion of the “change of mind,” as above 
insisted on as its primary requisite, the notion of a proceeding in the 
inner or spirit-life of the man; which, however, naturally does not exclude 
the accessory notion that this inner process has also as its necessary con- 
sequence an external action. If, further, vetdvora in the N. T. “ordinarily ” 
serves for the designation of human penitence, this presents no difficulty 
to the supposition of its having on one occasion preserved its original 
verbal signification ;! specially in a passage where not an article of faith 
is to be expressed, but simply an historic fact to be related. (4) That the 
thought thus obtained would not accord with the object of the author and 
the parallel vi.4-6 (de Wette). But the author’s object is no other than to 
show, by the warning example of Esau, that the member also of the 
Christian community who is 8é87A0¢ may for ever come short of the attain- 
ment of salvation ; that, however, ver. 17 is to be explained in accordance 
with the standard furnished by vi. 4-6, is an arbitrary presupposition. (5) 
That this interpretation did not enter into the mind of the Fathers. But 
this argument, added by Delitzsch, as it in like manner frequently recurs 
with him, is an unscientific one. For to the Greek Fathers and their ex- 
positions can only be applied that which was said of them long ago by 
Joh. Gerhard (tom. I. of the Loci Theologici, chap. v. p. 30): “sint et habe- 
antur lumina, non autem numina.”—Others? refer eravoiac to Esau him- 
self, and then regard the words peravoiac yap térov ody eipev as a parenthe- 
sis, and make avr#yv glance back to ra ebAoyiav. .The statement: peravoiag 
yap térov ovy evper, is then understood either objectively: he found no place 
for the repentance which he actually experienced, or subjectively: he found no 
place in his heart for the feeling of repentance ; in the former sense, e. g. Cal- 
vin: “nihil profecit vel consequutus est sera sua poenitentia, etsi cum 
lacrymis quaereret benedictionem, quam sua culpa amiserat,” and Bleek : 
“he found no longer any place for repentance, change of mind, inasmuch 
as it was too late for that, and it could avail him nothing now, however 
much he might regret it;” in the latter sense, e. g., Bengel: “ It could no 
longer be awakened in Esau. Natura rei rectsabat.” But against the 


1Comp. e.g. Josephus, de Bello Jud. i. 4.4: des Hebrderbr. p. 771), Ewald, Hofmann, 
émicovy Thy seTaVvOLaY avTOvV Kai TOU TpOTOU Rénsch in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 
To avupador. 1874, H. 1, p. 127 ff., and already tevés in 
2As Theophylact, Calvin, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Oecumenius. 
Schmid, Bleek, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. 


CHAP. XcIiy Woe We 


first nodification of this rendering decides the thought which would thus 
arise, false at least for the application of the statement, since in the Chris- 
tian domain arepentance that is worthy of the name can never be too 
late, never ineffectual (comp. Luke xxiii. 39-43); against the second, the 
internal contradiction in which this interpretationis involved with the con- 
cession Kairep pera daxpbov éxfytiaac avtqv, Since surely by this very fact the 
actual presence of a repentance was manifested; against both, finally, the 
harshness and unnaturalness of the grammatical construction, by which 
the syntactical order is forced out of its simple connection. Others, finally, 
as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Primasius, Luther, Grotius, Nemethus, de 
Wette, Alford, Reuss, rightly indeed refer air#v back to weravoiac, but then 
understand yetdavoia of Hsau’s change of mind. Luther: “for he found no 
room for penitence, although he sought it with tears.” De Wette: “ For 
repentance (penitence, amendment, 7. e. for the return tothe theocratic 
union by the laying aside of his unhallowed, frivolous character) he found 
no room, no place, no scope (é. e. there was not granted him, by the delay- 
ing of the sentence of reprobation, the possibility of manifesting a more 
worthy spirit, and of becoming reconciled to God), although he sought it 
with tears.” But if one takes the statement with Luther subjectively, it 
yields a harsh, repulsive, contradictory thought; if one takes it, with de 
Wette, objectively, it would be incorrectly expressed, since in that case 
avtév (se. réror) must of necessity have been written in place of airfp (se. 
uetavorav). Moreover, for this whole mode of explanation the narrative in 
Genesis affords no point of support. 

Vy. 18-29. To the endeavor after sanctification the readers are bound, 
by the constitution of that New Covenant to which they have come. 
While the Old Covenant bore the character of the sensuous, earthly, and 
that which awakens merely fear, the New Covenant has the character of 
the spiritual, heavenly, brings into communion with God and all saints, 
and confers reconciliation (vy. 18-24). Against apostasy, therefore, from 
the New Covenant (by an immoral walk), are the readers to be on their 
guard ; for their guilt and culpability would be thereby incomparably en- 
hanced. Rather are they to be filled with thankfulness towards God for 
the participation in the immovable kingdom of the New Covenant, and 
with awe and reverence to serve Him (vv. 25-29). 

On vv. 18-24, comp. G. Chr. Knapp in his Scripta varii argum., ed. 2, 
Hal. Saxon. 1823, tom. I. pp. 231-270. [On Vv. 18-24 see Note LXXXI., 
pages 726, 727.] 

Ver. 18. Tap] [LX XXI a.] enforces, by a reason adduced, the exhorta- 
tion to sanctification at ver. 14 ff., inasmuch as there is an underlying 
reference to the fact that, according to Ex. xix. 10 f., 14 f.. the people of 
Israel in their day, before they were permitted to approach Mount Sinai 
in order to receive the law, had to sanctify themselves (Ex. xix. 10: 
ayvioov avtovc; ver. 14: Kat jyiacev abtoic), to wash their clothes, and to 
preserve themselves free from all defilement.—oi yap rpoceAnAtrSare] for ye 
did not, se. when ye became Christians, draw near. [LXXXIb.] Comp. 
Deut. iv. 11: xai rpoogAde_ere Kai éotyte brd Td bpoc.—YnAadwpévrw dbpec] to a 


. 


714 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


mountain which is touched, i.e. felt, or laid hold of with hands. That which 
isintended is Mount Sinai, the place of revelation of the Mosaic law, 
mentioned also Gal. iv. 24, 25 as the representative of Judaism. As a 
mountain, however, which is touched or felt with hands this mountain is 
spoken of, in order thereby to express its character of externally percep- 
tible, earthly, in opposition to the supra-sensuous, heavenly (éroupdvov, 
ver. 22). The form ~7Aa¢omevov is not to be taken as synonymous with 
yuragytov, that could be touched, as is still done by Knapp, Bohme, 
Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, 
Swald, and the majority of modern expositors. For the participle is in- 
deed employed for the verbal adjective in the Hebrew, but never in the 
Greek. Neither can pyAageouevov signify: “touched of God by lightning, 
and therefore smoking” (Schéttgen, Kypke, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
Storr, Heinrichs, and others; comp. Ex. xix. 18: 76 dpo¢ rd Ywa éxarvitero 
vAov dia TO KataBEeBnxévar Er’ avTd Tov Beov év Tupi; Ps. Civ. 82: 6 dxtépevoe Tov 
opéwv kai Karvifovrar), Since yyAagav signifies not the contact made with the 
view to the producing of an effect, but only the touching or feeling (hand- 
ling), which has as its design the testing of the quality or the presence of 
an object. Comp. Luke xxiv. 39; 1 John i.1; Acts xvii. 27. Moreover, 
the participle present is unsuitable to this explanation, instead of which a 
participle of the past must have been chosen.—«ai kexavyéve’ rvpi] is under- 
stood by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Knapp, Paulus, Stuart, 
Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 114), Maier, 
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, al., as a new particular, co-ordinate with the yyia- 
gwuévy oper: “and enkindled fire.” On account of the like nature of the 
additions, kai yvdgy «.7.A., immediately following, this acceptation seems 
in itself the more natural; but since, in the passages of the Pentateuch 
which were before the mind of the writer in connection with this expres- 
sion, there are found the words: xai rd dpo¢ éxaiero xupi (comp. Deut. iv. 11, 
vy. 23, ix. 15), it is more probable that the author referred xexavuévo still to 
dpe, and would have zvpé taken as dativus instrum. to xexavuévpy: and 
which (mountain) was enkindled, or set on flame, with jfire—xai yvdeo Kad 
(6¢@ Kai GvéA24] aed to gloom and darkness and tempest. Comp. Deut. iv. 
11, v. 22: oxdroc, yvdgoc, BieAAa, 

Ver. 19. Kai cdariyyoc iyo] and to the sound of trumpet. Comp. Ex. xix. 
16: dwvy tHe odArcyyoc Hye wéya. Ibid. ver. 19, xx. 18.—xai dor7 pnuator | 
and clang (piercing note) of words, which, namely, were spoken by God at 
the publication of the law, Ex. xx., Deut. v."—7j¢ of akotoavrec x.1.2.] they 
that heard which begged to be spared (ver. 25; Acts xxv. 11), that it should be 
Jurther spoken to them (sc. on account of the terribleness of that already 
heard)? Comp. Deut. v. 25: kai viv uy aroSdvonev .. . av rpoodaueda 
queic akovoar THY dwryv Kvpiov Tov Beod yuav étc; Deut. xviil. 16; Ex. xx. 18, 


1Comp. Deut. iv. 12: Kat éAaAnoe Kvptos renuerit audire Dei verba, sed deprecatus 
M™pos Vas EK LEgOV TOV TUPOS hwVHY pyLaTar, est, ne Deum ipsum loquentem audire coge- 
Hv des WKOVoaTE. retur. Persona enim Mosis interposita hor- 
2Calvin: Caeterum quod dicit populum rorem nonnihil mitigabat. 
excusasse, non ita debet accipi, quasi populus 


CHAP, xr 19221. 715 


19.—jc] goes back to gorf, and is dependent not on Aédyov (Storr), but 
upon akovcavrec.—yp4] after verbs of seeking to be excused, denying, warding 
off, etc., quite ordinarily. See Kiihner, II. p. 410; Winer, p. 561 [E. T. 
604].—airoic] looks back to the Israelites (oi axoicavrec), not to pnudror. 

Vy. 20, 21 form a parenthesis, and yap adducesa reason for the thought 
of the terribleness of the mode of revelation under the Old Covenant. The 
words otk Egepov yap TO dtactehsAdmevov, however, contain no inde- 
pendent statement, in such wise that 1d diaoreAAduevov should refer back to 
that which is before mentioned (Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. 
Schlichting). For in that case «av Oypiov «.7.2. would stand without con- 
nection. Rather are the words an introductory formula for the citation 
immediately attached. 7d dcaoteAdéuevor, further, does not stand in 
the sense of a middle: that which ordained, or the divine voice ordaining 
(Storr, Schulz, Heinrichs, Delitzsch), which is constrained, but in a passive 
sense: that which was ordained, the divine commandment. The sense is, 
consequently : for they endured not the mandate, “Though only a beast 
touch the mountain, it shall be stoned.”—The citation is freely reproduced 
from Ex. xix. 12,13, in an abbreviated form, and one bringing out at 
once the gist of the narrative. In Exodus the words read: kai agopieig tov 
Aadv KiKAW, Aéywr" TpooéyeTe EavToig Tov avaBqvar Eig TO Spoc Kai Hiyew Te avTOv 
mac 6 dwdpuevog tov bpove Gavatw Tehevtjoer. Ody awetae avdTov yelp’ év yap 
Ato. AvGoBoAnShoetrar } Bodidc KatatoSevdyjoetar’ dv Te KTHvoc, édv Te dvOpwroc, 
ov ChoeTa. 

Ver. 21. Kai] is the ordinary conjunctive “and.” It belongs not to 
oitw¢ doBepov qv Td gavTafduevov, in such wise that Mwio7e eimev x.7.A. “is 
added by way of appendix, with an accentuation of the subject which 
renders any connecting particle unnecessary ” (Hofmann), but to Mwicye 
elmev, in such wisethat ottwc goBepov jv Td davtaléuevov formsan 
exclamation, inserted parenthetically within the greater parenthesis : and— 
so terrible was the appearing !—Moses said, I am sore afraid and tremble. 
kai cannot be taken, with Jac. Cappellus, Carpzoy, Schulz, Knapp, 
Béhme, Bloomfield, and others, for the enhancing “even.” For, from its 
position, it can only serve for the connection of the clauses, while for the 
indication of the sense alleged an additional «ai immediately before 
Mwioge (or even an airée before the same) would have been required. Yet 
the right feeling underlies this interpretation: that, regarded as a fact, 
ver. 21 contains an ascending gradation from ver. 20, inasmuch as the 
being seized with fear, which at ver. 20 was asserted of the people, is 
now in like manner predicated of Moses, the leader of the people.—rd 
gavrafouevov] equivalent to 7d dacvéuevor, the appearing, the visible cover- 
ing in which the invisible God manifested Himself to the Israelites.'—The 
verb gav7dflectac in the N. T. only here.—ixgoBde eiue kat Evtpouoc] In the 
accounts of the promulgation of the law given in the Pentateuch, an 
expression of this kind on the part of Moses is not met with. According 


1Theodoret: davratéuevov Sé elmev, Ered) ovK avTov éwpwv Tov TaV dAwy Oedy GAAG TLVA 
havtaciav THs Oetas emiaveias. 


716 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


to Zeger, Beza, Estius, Schlichting, Chr. Fr. Schmid [M’Lean, with hesita- 
tion], Heinrichs, Stuart, Stein, and others, the author drew the same from 
tradition ; according to Owen and Calov, he gained the knowledge even 
from immediate inspiration; while Carpzov will not have an actual utter- 
ance of Moses thought of at all, but, on the contrary, takes the formula: 
“Moses dicit: horreo et tremo,” as of the same meaning with the bare 
“ Moses horret et tremit;” and Calvin has recourse to the not less violent 
expedient: “Mosem nomine populi sic loquutum, cujus mandata quasi 
internuntius ad Deum referebat. Fuit igitur haec communis totius populi 
querimonia; sed Moses inducitur, qui fuit veluti commune et omnium.” 
Without doubt the words of LXX. Deut. ix. 19 [ef. ver. 15] were present to 
the mind of the author, where in another connection Moses says: xa? 
éxgoBd¢ eiuc. These words he then transferred, by virtue of an inexact 
reminiscence, to the time of the promulgation of the law. 

Vv. 22-24. Contrast to vv. 18,19. Positive characterization of the com- 
munion into which the readers have entered by the reception of Chris- 
tianity. The description, vv. 22-24, corresponds not in detail to the 
particulars enumerated, vv. 18, 19 (against Bengel, who ingeniously con- 
structs a sevenfold antithesis; as likewise against Delitzsch, Kluge, and 
Ewald, who have followed the same); although we should be led to expect 
this from the corresponding words of commencement, vv. 18, 22. More- 
over, the succession of clauses contained in vy. 22-24 is no strictly logical 
one, since at least kai mvetpacw dikaiwy TeTeAewpérov Would have been more 
appropriately placed before than after kai kpity Oe ravTwr.—aA2a xpoce- 
Anhvdate Liav bper Kai ToAEt Oeov COvroc, ‘Iepovoaanu érovpaviw] but drawn near 
have ye to the mountain Zion and the city of the living God, namely, the heavenly 
Jerusalem. The three substantive-appellations contain a single idea, in 
that to the closely connected twofold expression : Svav dper kai wéAee Oeov 
Cavroc, the following ‘Iepovoaaju éxovpaviy forms an explanatory apposi- 
tion. As Mount Zion (in opposition to the Mount Sinai, ver. 18) the 
heavenly Jerusalem is designated, because in the O. T. the Mount Zion is 
very frequently described as the dwelling-place of God, and the place 
whence the future salvation of the people is to be looked for. Comp. Ps. 
xlviii. 3 [2], 1. 2, Ixxviii. 68, cx. 2, exxxii. 13 ff.; Isa. ii. 2, 3; Joel iii. 5 
fii. 82]; Mic. iv. 1,2; Obad. 17, al. Likewise also is the heavenly Jeru- 
salem called the city of the living God (comp. too in relation to the earthly 
Jerusalem: 76Acc¢ éotiv tov peyddov BaoiAéwc, Matt. v. 35), not so much because 
‘the living and acting God is its architect (xi. 10), as because He has 
His throne there.—xai pwpidow ayyéAov] [LX XXI c.] and to myriads of 
angels, the servants, and as it were the court of God. kai puprdoey 
ayyéiov belongs together, without, however, our having? to refer like- 
wise tavyybper, ver. 23, to the same as an apposition. For such apposi- 


1Beza, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Calov, lact, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, 
Braun, Kypke, Carpzoy, Cramer, Baumgarten, Calvin, Corn. a Lapide, Piscator, Grotius; 
Storr, Dindorf, Tholuck, Kurtz, Hofmann, Tischendorf (ed. 2), Bloomfield, Conybeare, 
and others. Ewald, and others. 


2 With Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 


CHAP. XII. 22, 23. 717 


tion, consisting of a bare individual word, would be out of keeping with 
the euphonious fullness of the whole description ; and, if this construction 
had been intended, kai pupradwv ayyédwv ravyyiper Would have been 
written. But just as little must we with others (also Bleek and de Wette) 
take «ai pvpedory alone, as standing independently; whether, as Seb. 
Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Griesbach, Knapp, Bohme, Kuinoel, Stengel, 
Bisping, Maier, Moll, we regard as apposition thereto merely ayyéAov 
ravnyiper, Or, aS Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Ernesti, Schulz, Lachmann, 
Bleek, Tischendorf (ed. 1), Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
Hebraerbr. p. 117), Alford, Kluge, Woerner, both the following members: 
ayyéAwy wavyyvper Kal ExKAnoia TpwroToKwy aroyeypaupévwv év ovpavoic—in con- 
nection with which latter supposition, however, the more nearly connect- 
ing re «ai, of frequent use with the author (ii. 4, 11, iv. 12, al.), would 
have been more naturally expected than the bare xai before éxkAyjoig. 
For yvpidow is a very indefinite notion, which, where its reference is not 
self-evident from the connection, requires a genitival addition; besides, 
the accentuation of the idea of plurality alone would here be meaningless. 
Further, the reasons advanced against our mode of explanation, that in 
such case we ought, after the analogy of the following members, to expect 
a kai before ravyyipec (Seb. Schmidt, Bleek, Ebrard); that tavyyipe and 
that which follows would become in the highest degree dragging (Bleek) ; 
that ravyyipec would be superfluous (de Wette),—are without weight. For 
kai was omitted by reason of the euphonious cavyyiper Kai éxxAnoia, into 
which a «ai placed also before tavyyipec would have introduced a discord- 
ant note; the charge of dragging would have been justified, only if a kai 
had really been added before zavyyiper; nor, again, is wavyytpec super- 
fluous, since it contains a very significant notion, and one different from 
that of éxkAnoia. 

Ver. 28. Tavyyiper kat éxxanoia mpwtotékev, aroyeypampévov év ovpavoic] to 
the festive assembly and congregation of the first-born, who are enrolled in 
heaven. ravfyupic, in the N. T. a azaé Aeyouevov, designates the total gath- 
ering under the form of conception of a being gathered together in festivity 
and jubilant joy [cf. Joseph. Antt. v. 2,12]; whereas éxxAyoia characterizes 
those assembled as bound together in inner unity. To be enrolled in heaven, 
however, signifies to stand recorded upon the book of heaven’s citizens, 
or to haye part in the rights and privileges of the heavenly citizens. From 
the connection (poceAnAifate ‘Iepovoadnu éxovpaviy Kai prpidow ayyédwv) 
beings must be intended, who already dwell in heaven, are actually in 
possession of the civil rights and immunities of heaven, not those by 
whom the enjoyment of the same is only to be looked for in the future. 
Since, then, they are by means of tpwréroxox represented as those who in 
point of time first (before others as yet) became sons of God, we have to 
think most naturally, with Calvin, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Woerner, and 
others, of the patriarchs and saints of the Old Covenant (comp. chap. xi.), 
who, it is true only upon the condition of union with Christ (xi. 40), but 
yet by reason of their filial relation to God, did, in a temporal respect 
before the Christians, receive a dwelling-place and rights of citizenship in 


718 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


heaven. According to Nosselt, Storr, Kurtz, and others, we have to under- 
stand by the zporéroxo still the angels before mentioned, as being the 
earliest inhabitants of heaven; but for the designation of the angels, the 
. characteristic azoyeypaupévoe év ovpavoig is unsuitable. The majority dis- 
cover in zpwrdéroxo a reference to the Christians; and that either, as Pri- 
masius and Grotius suppose, specially to the apostles—against which, how- 
ever, stands cavyyipe: kai éxxAnota, which involves the idea of a great host; 
or, as Schlichting, J. L. Mosheim (de ecclesia primogenitorum in coelo 
adscriptorum, Helmst. 1733, 4to), Schulz, Bleek, Ebrard, and others, to the 
Jirst believers from among the Jews and Gentiles, particularly the former, 
quite apart from the question of their being now dead or still living ; or, 
as Knapp, Béhme, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
Hebraerbr. p.117), Alford, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 147, 2 Aufl.), Moll, 
and others, specially to the church which is still wpon earth, so that in con- 
nection with mpwrdéroxo: we have to hold fast only to the particular fact of 
the dignity, while we retain no reference to time; or, as de Wette and 
Maier, specially to those who have fallen asleep in the faith of Christ, and 
perhaps even were glorified by martyrdom; or finally, as Piscator, Owen, 
Carpzoy, Stein, Stuart, Stengel, and others, to the members of the New 
Covenant in general. But the thought of Christians in this place is a remote 
one; since the mention of them, in harmony with the order of relating 
now chosen, would more naturally take place only later, in connection 
with the mention of Christ Himself, and not already here, between that 
of the angels and God.—«ai kpity 626 ravtor] and to Him as Judge, who is 
God over all. xavrov is usually construed with xp:ty. But from its posi- 
tion it can depend only upon 6e6. dvrwy is masculine, and refers not 
merely—as Knapp and Bleek suppose—to the fore-mentioned angels and 
rpuréroxot. It stands absolutely; so that God, in delicate opposition to the 
Jewish particularism, is characterized as in general the God of all. The 
apparently unsuitable characterization of God in this connection (because 
one containing nothing specially Christian), namely, as the Judge, is justi- 
fied from the aifn of the writer, to warn the readers against laxity of 
morals, and consequently against apostasy from Christianity (comp. vv. 
25, 29).—kal rvebuaorv Suxalow tereAgwapévor] and to the spirits of the perfected 
just ones. mvebmara: dedgnation of the departed spirits, as divested of 
the body (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 19; Luke xxiv. 39; Acts vii. 59), inasmuch as 
these only at the resurrection will be clothed with a new body. Most 
probably the Christians fallen-asleep are those meant.’ Others? think of 
the saints of the O.T. (chap. xi.); or, alike of the departed saints of the 
O. T. and those of the New. The dixazor, however, are called rete Aevapévor 
not in the sense of the “ perfect just ones” *—for which the expression 
rédewr Would much more naturally have presented itself,—nor yet because 
they have finished their life’s course and overcome the weaknesses and 


1Grotius, Mosheim, Bengel, Sykes, Baum- 3As Knapp, Bohme, Tholuck, Bisping, De- 
garten, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and many. litzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr.. des Hebrderbr. p. 
2As Corn. a Lapide, Schlichting, Wittich, 122), Alford, Moll, Kurtz. 
Wolf, Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Maier. 4Theophylact, Luther, Stengel, al. 


CHAP. XII. 24, 25. aig 


imperfections of the earthly life,! but because they have already been 
brought by Christ to the goal of consummation. Comp. ii. 10, x. 14, 
xi. 40, 

Ver. 24. Néac] characterizes the covenant as new in regard to the time 
of its existence (foedus recens), whereas kacvy, vill. 8, 13, ix. 15, described 
it as new in respect of its quality (foedus novum). Wrongly Béhme, Kui- 
noel, and others (de Wette likewise wavers): véa¢ is here to be taken as 
of the same import with kav7j¢—kai aiwate pavtiopov| Jesus’ atoning blood 
is called blood of sprinkling, inasmuch as those who believe in Him, in 
spirit sprinkled therewith, are cleansed from their sins and sanctified to 
God. Comp. ix. 13 f., x. 22, xiii. 12—xpeirrov] isan adverb. Comp. 1 Cor. 
vii. 88. Needlessly will Kurtz have it taken as a substantive adjective. 
Better does the blood of Christ speak than Abel with his blood ; since the 
latter calls for the divine vengeance, the former, on the other hand, for 
God’s grace upon sinners.—zapa] See at i. 4—apa tov “ABeA] may be 
looked upon as a well-known brachylogy for rapa 76 aiva tov “APed. 
This is not, however, at all necessary, seeing that, at xi. 4 likewise, Abel 
himself is represented as speaking after his death (by means of his blood 
which was shed). 

Ver. 25. [On Vv. 25-29, see Note LXXXII., page 727.] The author 
has but just now, vy. 18-24, in order to enforce with reasoning his exhor- 
tation to the dy:acudéc, ver. 14 ff., described, in a comparison of the Old 
Covenant with the New, the exalted nature of the communion into which 
the readers had entered by the reception of Christianity. As a conclusion 
therefrom, he warns them against falling away again from Christianity 
through laxity of morals (comp. also ver. 28 f.), in pointing out, similarly 
as ii. 2 ff., x. 28 ff., that if the Israelites in old time incurred punishment 
by disobedience to the O. T. revelation of God, an incomparably severer 
judgment would overtake those Christians who should turn back again 
from the N. T. revelation of God.—The simple 2ézere, without the addi- 
tion of oiv, renders the warning so much the more powerful. Entirely 
mistaken, Delitzsch: ody is not added, in order that one may not suppose 
the warning to attach itself to ob yap mpoceAnaibate . . . adda rpoceAnAitate 
..., but, on the contrary, it should be manifest that the author thinks 
of the One speaking, against the refusing of whom he warns, as in most 
intimate connection with the speaking blood of the Mediator of the Cove- 
nant which has just been mentioned. —(2érere py rapartionode Tov Aahovvra] 
[LXXXII a.] take heed that ye do not beg off from Him that speaketh (to 
you), that ye turn not away from Him and despise Him. 6 Aa46y is not 
Christ (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Vatablus, Bbhme, Kuinoel, 
Ebrard, Bloomfield, a/.), but that God who still continues to speak to the 
readers by means of the Christian facts of salvation. For by tév Aadoivra 
the same person must be designated, as subsequently by rév az’ ovpavér, 
sc. xpnuaritovra. By the latter, however, can be meant, on account of the 
ov referring back to it at ver. 26, and by reason of the érfyyeArac there 


1Qalvin, Limborch, B6hme, Kuinoel, Kurtz, and others. 


720 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


occurring (comp. also ver. 29), only God. From this it follows, too, the: 
by éxi ye 6 ypnuati~oy is meant, not Moses (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Carpzov, and others), but likewise God,' so that there is not an insisting 
upon a diversity of persons in connection with the O. T. and the N. T. 
revelation, and thence a difference of degree inferred ; but the diversity of 
the mode of revelation is accentuated, and thereby the higher value of the 
one revelation above the other on the one hand is marked, and on the 
other the higher culpability of apostasy from the one than from the 
other. To the Jews God spake upon the palpable earthly mountain 
Sinai, choosing as His interpreter an earthly man, Moses; to the Chris- 
tians, on the other hand, He speaks from heaven, in sending to them 
His own Son from heaven as His interpreter.—oix« é€éévyov] did not 
escape, did not evade the divine punishment. Comp. ii. 3. Wrongly 
Delitzsch, even because the odd waddov jueic x.7.2. does not harmonize 
therewith: were not able to withdraw, but were obliged to stand fast.— 
éxl ype tov ypnuatifovra] the One speaking upon earth words of revela- 
tion. Belongs together, in that é7i y7¢ was placed on account of the 
Sere emphasis before the article. Similarly the postposing of iva, Gal. 

. 10, and the like.—road paddov jyeic] sc. ok éxdevddueda.—aroorpégerdai 
a to turn away from any one, reject his fellowship. 

Ver. 26. Like as the author has stated the fact, ver. 25, as a sign of the 
inferiority of Judaism to Christianity, that God in connection with the 
former was One ézi yfe¢ ypypatifov, In connection with the latter, on the 
other hand, One az ovpavev ypnuatifov, so does he now in like manner 
urge, as a further proof of that inferiority, the circumstance that God then 
only shook the earth, but now in accordance with the prophecy will shake 
not only the earth, but at the same time also the heavens.—éodievoer] is to 
be understood in the literal sense, not, with Estius and others, in the 
figurative.—rére] then, sc. at the promulgation of the Mosaic law. Comp. 
Ex. xix. 18 (where, however, the LXX., probably in reading D271 instead 

of V7, translate: nal é&éory mac 6 Aadc o66dpa); Judg.v.4f.; Ps. Ixviii. 
9 (Si) exive. 4 ard Tpoodrov Kupiov éoahevSyn 7 yij.—vov dé srchy ode ak déyov] 
who now, on the other hand, has promised as follows. A‘constructio ad sensum, 
since thé.words form the second member of the relative clause ; but, not- 
withstanding that, a bound is suddenly made from the preceding subject 4 
gwvy to the subject contained in the oi, namely, God Himself.—viv] now, 
has certainly the sense: in regard to the present Christian period (more 
-exactly: in regard to the epoch of the consummation of the divine king- 
dom by the coming again of Christ). Grammatically, however, viv «.7.1. 
has arisen from the contracting of two statements in one, and is to be 
resolved, with Schlichting, into: nunc vero commoyebit non solum terram 
sed etiam coelum, sicut promisit apud prophetam, dicens, ete.—érfyyeArar] 
in the middle sense, as Rom. iv. 21. See Winer, p. 246 [E. T. 262].—The 
citation is from Hag. ii. 6, but reproduced in a free and abbreviated form 
(LXX.: ére arak éyo ceiow Tov ovpavoy Kai THY yHv Kai THY Vadaccay Kal THY 


1 Ebrard will have us think of Christ as the second person of the Godhead! 


——— 


CHAP. XII. 26-28, . 721 


Enpav).—étt drag] Faulty rendering of the LXX. instead of: yet a little 
while. 

Ver. 27. The author, arguing from the éu dragé of the prophetic word 
of scripture just adduced, brings out as a second feature of the superiority 
of Christianity, that it is abiding and intransitory—T0 dé ‘Er: aéxaé] The 
expression, however, Yet once more, sc. and then not again. ére araé, 
namely, is taken by the writer absolutely.—dyioi tiv tov carevouévor perd- 
Yeowv] declares (points to) the changing of that which is being shaken, sc. the 
earth and the (visible) heavens, inasmuch as it is a well-known matter (77) 
that, at the epoch of the consummation of the kingdom of God, the pres- 
ent earth and the present heavens will be transformed into a new earth 
and new heavens (comp. Isa. Ixv. 17 ff., xvi. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 18; Rev. xxi. 
1); the shaking, however, of the heavens and the earth predicted by the 
prophet will be the only one, and consequently the last one, which will 
take place at all.—dée remoujpévuv] because they are created, i.e. visible, 
earthly, and transitory, things. The words draw attention to the constitu- 
tion of the caAevdueva, thereby to make it appear as something natural 
that these should undergo a change or transformation. They are not to 
be taken together with the following iva; in connection with which con- 
struction we have either the explanation : which namely has been made, to 
the end that that which is immovable may remain,'—which, however, without 
more precise indication, yields arbitrary variations of the meaning, but no 
clear thought,—or : which was made indeed only for the purpose of awaiting 
that which is immovable, and giving place to the same when this comes in2 
Grammatically there is nothing to be alleged against this acceptation of 
the words, although the expression yévew is not elsewhere employed by 
the author in the sense of “to await anything ;” nor even against the 
thought in itself can any objection be raised. But then it appears unsuit- 
able to the connection; since upon this interpretation that which the 
author will derive from the ér: a@zaz, namely, the coming in of that which 
is eternal and intransitory, is brought out in much too subordinate a 
form. iva is therefore to be taken as dependent on rjv rév catevouévov 
wetavdeow, inasmuch as it adduces the higher design of God in the trans- 
formation of the present earth and the present heavens: in order that there 
may then abide (have a permanent existence) that which cannot be shaken, 
sc. the eternal blessings of Christianity, into the full enjoyment of which 
the Christian will enter so soon as a new earth and new heaven is formed, 
and the kingdom of God attains to its consummation. 

Ver. 28. Exhortation to be thankful to God, and to serve Him in an 
acceptable manner.—A:é] infers from the concluding words of ver. 27: 
Wherefore, because that which will have an everlasting existence is no 
other than the kingdom of God, in which we Christians have obtained 
part. The author himself expresses this thought in the participial clause 
elucidatory of the 6:6, BaciAetav dodlevrov rapahauBavorrtec: since 


1Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Delitasch, *Bauldry in Wolf, Storr, Bohme, Kuinoe}, 
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 130, Obs. ; Hofmann, ai. 
Kluge, Moll, Woerner, al, 


46 


422 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


the kingdom which we Christians obtain (which becomes the possession of 
us Christians) is an immovable, intransitory one. The participle present 
rapazauPavovtec, of that which is indeed future, but which with certainty 
comes in. Erroneously do Calvin, transil., Schlichting, Limborch, Bengel, 
and others understand the participial clause as a constituent part of the 
exhortation: “let us receive the immovable kingdom, appropriate it to 
ourselves by faith,’ which is already rendered impossible by the anar- 
throus BaovAeiav in itself—éyopev yap] [LX XXII b.] let us cherish thankful- 
ness, sc. towards God. Comp. Luke xvii.9. Wrongly Beza, Schlichting, 
Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, Bisping, and many others: let us 
hold fast the grace. For in that case the article could not be wanting in 
connection with yap, and instead of éyouev must stand karéyouev (comp. 
iii. 6, 14, x. 23) or xparduev (comp. iv. 14).—d? 7¢ Aatpebopev evapéoto¢ TO 
66] and by the same serve God in an acceptable manner. 76 6€6 belongs to 
Aatpebopev.—eTa evAaBeiac Kai déovce] with reverential awe (in that we watch 
against that which is displeasing to God) and fear. Amplification of the 
evapioTwc. 

Ver. 29. Warning justification of the wera evAaBeiac kai déove. The words 
cannot, however, signify : for our God too (the God of Christians), even as 
the God of the Old Covenant, is a consuming fire (so still Bleek, de Wette, 
Tholuck, Bisping, and others). For to this end kai yap guar 6 bedc¢ 
x.7.2. must have been written. Just as little may kai yap, with Delitzsch, 
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 60, Obs.), Alford, Moll, and Kurtz, be 
weakened into the mere notion of “etenim.” For «ai is the enhancing 
“more than this,” and belongs to the whole clause, in connection with 
which it would be a matter of indifference (against Delitzsch) whether the 
author should write kai yap 6 6ed¢ juov mip Katavadioxov OY Kai yap Tip 
Katavadioxov 6 bed¢ juov, since in either case the main emphasis in con- 
nection with the few words would fall upon zip katavadicxov. According 
to the order of the words, and by reason of the intensive force of kai, the 
sense can therefore only be: for our God is also a consuming fire, i.e. He 
is not merely a God of grace, but likewise a God of punjtive righteousness. 
A diversity, consequently, of the God of the Old Testament and the God 
of the New, which would also have been an unsuitable notion, the author 
does not by any means assert. Moreover, comp. LXX. Deut. iv. 24: 67 
Kbptog oO Oed¢ cov Tip Katavadiokov éoTiv. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 
LAX VIEL ole: 


(a) The twelfth chapter has, evidently, somewhat of the character of a final 
appeal to the readers—as in the peroration of a rhetorical discourse. It is in con- 
nection with this fact that the full-toned and euphonious particle tovyapovr is used 
at the beginning, instead of 626, dia rovro, bev, which are found in other cases in 
the epistle. Delitzsch says of this particle that it is “an earnest ergo, Tot affirming 
the conditions of fact, yép founding upon them, and ov following thereupon.” 
Grimm, Lex. N.T., calls it “particula cum quadam vi vel solemnitate concludentis.” 


NOTES. 725 


In view of the record of these O. T. heroes, the exhortation to press on with sted- 
fast endurance is presented anew.—(b) The two participles éyovre¢ and agopavtec, 
as Liinem. says, stand in the same grammatical relation to the verb tpéyouev; but 
the relation of avoéuevor is not the same. The last-named participle is circum- 
stantial, or expresses a preliminary condition. The other two are causal. There 
seems, however, to be a slight difference between them :—#yovrTe¢ setting forth the 
ground of the exhortation, and thus being immediately united with tocyapotv, while 
agopavrec, though, in one view of it, expressing a reason for tpéywvev, in another 
view denotes the act which should accompany the running. Since we have so 
great a cloud, etc., let us run, ete., with our eyes fixed upon Jesus, the great leader, 
and with the inspiring influence which our contemplation of Him may give.—(c) 
The suggestions of Liinem. make it probable, though not indeed certain, that 
fLapTvpwv means witnesses to faith, and not witnesses of the rpéyerv of the readers. 
But the latter idea is suggested by wepixeiuevov védoc, and there can be little doubt 
that the writer had in mind a race-course, in the contests of which the combatants 
were surrounded by a great company of spectators who had run the same race 
themselves.—(d) kai before tv evrepiotatov ayapriav means and especially, i.e., it 
singles out from the zara this one thing as the one which is especially a weight, 
and which especially needs to be laid aside. The laying aside (aor. part.) must take 
place before the race is begun. With respect to the word edrepiorarov, while it 
must be admitted that the meaning is quite uncertain, it may be said that R. V. 
has given the renderings which are worthy of notice, and has arranged them 
according to their comparative probability—placing which doth so easily beset us in 
the text, and in the margin, first, doth so closely eling to us, and, secondly, is admired 
of many. dyuapria is to be understood, with Liinem., not of a particular sin, as e. g. 
apostasy in the case of the original readers, or, if an application be made to 
Christians of later times, of those sins to which they are especially prone, but sin 
in general. The article marks sin as the easily besetting thing, and-not any one 
kind of sin—(e) agopavrec is explained by Grimm: oculos ab aliis rebus aversos defigo. 
It seems to be substantially equivalent to a70Bé7 (xi. 26), which Grimm ex- 
plains by the same words. For the latter word, he adds attente intueor ; for this, 
animum adverto. Alf. denies that there is any intimation of “looking of from 
everything else unto,” and gives the meaning, as do A. V. and R. V., looking unto. 
That there should be an attentive contemplation of Jesus is, undoubtedly, the 
writer’s meaning.—(f) On apyyyéc, see Note XLVI d. The objection made by 
Liinem. to the explanation of Bleek and the numerous other writers to whom he 
refers: Jesus who in the manifestation of the faith has preceded us by His 
example, and in the manifestation of this faith has carried on the work unto per- 
fection (TeAe@ryc), can hardly be sustained. He thinks the author must have 
regarded Jesus, as Paul did, as the object of faith, and therefore could not have 
looked upon Him as an example of faith. But we must observe that it is not faith 
in the peculiar aspect in which Paul conceives of it, that the writer is here dis- 
cussing, but faith in the sense of that trust in God which is connected with con- 
fidence in things hoped for but not yet realized, and which inspires to stedfast 
endurance. Now the writer cv'dently suggests this hope of the future reward as 
inspiring Jesus, in the latter part of this verse ; he evidently speaks of Jesus as 
an example of stedfast endurance, in ver. 3; and in ch. ii. he apparently presents 
Him as the one who, by being Himself perfected, becomes the leader of the children 
of Gol to their glorified state. Liinem.’s objection that teAeco77¢ can be used only 


794 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


transitively seems, also, not to be decisive, because, as transitive, it may mean that 
Jesus brings faith in His own case to perfection. The view of Bleek is, accordingly, 
to be adopted, as being harmonious with the author’s thought both in this chapter 
and ch. ii. the only two places where the word apyyyéc¢ is used.—(g) The return, 
in this closing chapter, to the words, “and has sat down on the right hand of 
God,” is striking as exhibiting the rhetorical carefulness of the writer, fitting his 
discourse everywhere, so to speak, into itself. 


LXXIX. Vv. 3-11. 


(a) These verses contain reasons for yielding to the exhortation given in vy. 
1,2. yap of ver. 3is not to be taken, with Liinem., as equivalent to yea, but in- 
troduces a ground for the “running” agopavrec cic... . "Incovv, The mere fact 
that the sentence beginning with yap has its verb in the imperative does not pre- 
vent its sustaining this relation to what precedes—(b) R. V. and W. & H. read 
etc éavrov¢ in the text (ver.3). A. R.V., Tisch., Treg., Alf., read ei¢ éavrév. 
That éavtoi¢ has the majority of the oldest authorities in its favor can scarcely be 
doubted, for not only those which directly support it, but those also which have 
aitoi¢ may be counted. But the internal argument is strongly against it. 
Liinem. says the plural is “devoid of sense,’ and other writers use similar 
language. This, however, is too strong a statement, for the author may have 
desired to express the thought that the action of the sinners referred to was 
against their own well-being. Still it must be admitted, that such a thought 
seems antecedently improbable here—it is not in the line of the context ;—while, 
with éavrév, the sentence becomes just what might naturally be expected. When 
it is considered, that the singular, either éavrév or avrév, has considerable external 
testimony, (A P D*? E** K Land many cursives having one form or the other; also 
some mss. of the Vulg.), and that the change from the singular to the plural is 
one which might be made by a careless scribe, it seems not improbable, to say the 
least, that we may rightly yield to the force of the internal argument. In his 
note on Rom. v. 1, Tisch. says that éywuev cannot be rejected unless it is evidently 
ineptum, Which it is not. It must be remembered, however, that in Rom. vy. 1, 
the external evidence is much more decisive for éyuev, than it is here for the 
plural—(c) Ver. 4 joins the case of Christ with that of some of the O. T. heroes, 
and thus, in view of what both had experienced, urges upon the readers, as the 
first ground of his exhortation, the fact that they had not yet been called to 
endure such extreme trial. Ver. 4 unites itself closely, in this way, with yer. 3— 
(d) ékAéAnote of ver. 5 is to be’taken interrogatively, not only for the reason sug- 
gested by Liinem., Blk., Delitzsch, and others: that otherwise the reproach is too 
strong for the mild character of the discourse in the section, but also because the 
second ground for his exhortation is not given by the writer in a charge of for- 
getfulness, but in a recalling to their minds of what they must acknowledge, so 
soon as it is mentioned: that God’s chastisements are inflicted in love. The 
verb ékAéAvove is, in relation to the main thought of the verses, quite secondary—: 
“the discourse of God with sons” has the primary force. To give é«A4eA. the 
affirmative sense makes it too prominent.—(e) There is a difficulty, as related to 
the meaning, in each of the two text-readings, at the beginning of ver. 7. If & is 
adopted, iouévere does not seem to be the appropriate verb; we should expect: 
if ye are called to suffer, or if ye suffer, chastisement, ye are treated as sons ; 


NOTES. tao 


whereas the words are: if ye patiently (stedfastly) endure. The treatment as 
sons consists in God’s inflicting chastisement, not in our patient endurance under 
it. On the other hand, if cic is adopted, taieiav must, as Liinem. says in his 
textual note, have the sense of education, discipline, whereas in the remainder of 
the passage it means simply chastisement. We are obliged, therefore, to give a, 
different shade of meaning either to izouévere or to waideia from that which we 
find in the context. Hence we must be guided altogether, apparently, by the external 
evidence, which is strongly in favor of eic. That irouévere, with this text, is in- 
dicative (R. V. text), rather than imperative (R. V. marg.), is indicated by the 
fact that this is not a hortatory passage, but one that presents an argument for 
obedience to an exhortation already given—(j) The connection of mpo¢ A‘yac 
juépac (ver. 10) with the chastisement of both the earthly father and the heay- 
enly, is to be accepted (with Liinem.)—the difference in the two cases being in the 
kata TO dokovv avtoic and the éxi 7d ovudépov.—(y) Sixaoobvyc of ver. 11 is to be 
understood—such are all the indications of the context, which points to the 
development of character as the end in view—as meaning conformity to what is 
right: moral perfection. The word has thus the ordinary N. T. sense, not the 
Pauline or forensic. The fact that this is the meaning, and that such is the sug- 
gestion of the passage, shows that the genitive here is that of apposition. The 
fruit consists in righteousness. 


LXXX. Vv. 12-17. 


(a) The exhortations in these verses (see Note LX XI.) are subordinate to the 
main one, and are to the end of removing hindrances, etc., so that all may press 
on with stedfast endurance. These minor exhortations are, by 6: of ver. 12, 
founded upon the next preceding verses.—(b) The objection made by Liinem. to 
giving rol rooiv tuov the meaning for your fee-—that the way has been prepared for 
them by Christ, and so they are not to make it, but only to walk in it—is worthy 
of consideration. But it is not conclusive, for the figurative expression as a whole 
may be used to denote the straight-forward walking, and not necessarily refer to 
the path as independent of the walking. The simplest explanation, however, is 
that of Liinem., with your feet. Alford says, favoring the other view, “If the 
whole congregation, by their united and consistent walk, trod a plain and beaten 
path for men’s feet, these lame ones, though halting, would be easily able to keep 
in it.” Let us substitute in this sentence of Alford’s the words with your feet, and 
his suggestion favors the view of Liinem., Bleek and others ;—and it is to be 
remarked that the author of the Epistle says, not men’s feet, but your feet—(c) The 
view of Liinem., that tavtwy of ver. 14 includes all, non-Christians as well as 
Christians, is rendered improbable by the fact that the entire passage refers to 
Christians and their stedfast endurance, and here particularly to their influence 
upon one another.—(d) The considerations presented by Liinem. with respect to the 
words petavoiac yap k.7.A, show that the rendering which he gives, and which is 
adopted by A. R. V. text, is to be preferred. The fact that this explanation 
corresponds with the history as given in the O. T., and that there is no indication 
that Esau did not find any place of repentance—any opportunity of changing his 
own mind,—and little, if indeed anything, in the Scriptures to show that any one, 
except the man who commits the unpardonable sin, places himself beyond the 
opportunity of repentance before the moment of death, is a strong, if not conclu- 
sive, argument in favor of this rendering of the words. The view of Alford, that 





726 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Toro” petavoiag means a chance to repair the evil or remove the penalty by repent- 
ance, involves as great a change in the meaning of eTdvola, as the reference of 
the word to Isaac instead of Esau does in its ordinary subjective application, and 
has no advantage in any other respect as compared with that of A. R. V. The 

“two renderings which A. R. V. gives in the margin should, however, be recog- 
nized; namely: rejected (for he found no place of repentance) though he sought it [the 
blessing] diligently with tears (which is the rendering given by R. V.); and, rejected : 
for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it, etc. (which is the explanation 
given in A. V.). 


LXXXI. Vv. 18-24. 


(a) yap of ver. 18 connects these verses with the suggestion of the preceding 
paragraph—namely, that they should remove all hindrances in the way of that 
running with trouévy which had been urged uponthem. It will be noticed that 
yap extends in its force over all these seven verses, but not beyond them, and that 
the writer, in ver. 25, makes an abrupt turn in the thought, and without any 
particle immediately connecting ver. 25 with ver. 24. The true relation of vv. 
18-24 to the main thought of the chapter is that of a ground, in the way of 
encouragement, for the exhortation of ver. 2. Vv. 25-29, on the other hand, 
repeat, in emphatic closing words, the exhortation of x. 19 ff, (also found in ver. 
2), which is, indeed, the one great exhortation of the epistle——on the negative 
side—not to reject the new system and fall away by apostasy. This view of the 
passage from ver. 18 to ver. 29 is supported by all the suggestions which the 
passage itself and the whole progress of thought from x. 19 onward to this point 
offer, and is much to be preferred to that of Liinemann. 

(b) The contrast between the Christian revelation and the Mosaic which is here 
presented, is that of what is terrible and forbidding and what is hopeful and 
inspiring. The contrast is set forth in words and figurative representations which 
are suggested by the O. T. record of the giving of the Mosaic law, and of the 
earthly Jerusalem, etc. The pointing of all the words in the second part of the 
contrast is, evidently, towards those of the 24th verse—Jesus the mediator, ete. 


Through Him as mediator of the new covenant, and by means of His blood, it is 


that we come to Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem—and so to the company 
of the perfected ones. The thought returns, at the end of the whole hortatory 
passage belonging to this last sub-section of the epistle (viii. 1—x. 18), in a strik- 
ing way, to the point from which it moved at the beginning, x. 19-22: “ Having 
boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus.” The words are not 
precisely the same, but Jesus and the new covenant are the great ideas at the 
commencement and the close. The unity of this entire passage and its connection 
with viii. 1—x. 18 are, thus, manifest throughout all its parts. 

(c) The construction of pvpidow x.7.A, (ver. 22 f.) cannot be determined with 
certainty. But, if we may regard pvpidow as independent of ayyéAor, and may 
make the latter word depend on ravyyiper, the sentence moves on with the most 
satisfactory explanation of all its parts, and with the grand rhetorical emphasis 
and climax which we might expect of this author at the end of his discourse: 
and to innumerable hosts, the festal assembly of angels and the congregation of 
the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of ail, and to the 
spirits of just men made perfect. If this is the correct understanding of the 
words, the first-born enrolled in heaven are, most simply, taken as meaning the 


OE 


NOTES. 727 


church on earth; the spirits of the perfected righteous, as the church in heaven; 
and God the judge, as standing between them and assigning the former, as they 
pass to their reward, their place among the latter. It may be questioned, how- 
ever, whether the writer had such a carefully adjusted plan in the formation of 
his sentence, and whether he did not, on the other hand, allow himself to be 
borne on by feeling, securing his object by means of the emphasis of repetition 
(see xi. 33 ff). 


LXXXII. Vv. 25-29. 


(a) Aadoivra is not to be regarded as suggested simply by the Aadovvr: of ver. 
24. On the other hand, it carries in itself the meaning of this verb as used 
throughout the epistle, and is descriptive of God’s revelation, as in the first verse 
of the first chapter. There can be no doubt that by r6v Aadovvra the writer 
means God. He is represented here, as in i. 1, as the author of both of the two 
revelations. He spoke on earth through Moses; He speaks from heaven through 
Christ. The striking correspondence of this final exhortation with the first one of. 
the epistle, ii. 1-4, cannot fail to be observed.—(b) yaprv of ver. 28 is to be under- 
stood in the sense, not of grace, as R. V. text, but thankfulness, R. V. marg. This 
is indicated both by the reasons mentioned by Liinem., and by the fact that— 
while, on the one hand, grace is, in the N. T., viewed as the divine favor, so that 
we may be exhorted to seek for it or rejoice in it, but cannot so naturally be ex- 
horted to have it—on the other hand, the suggestion to serve God with thanks 
for such a glorious revelation of such a better covenant, mingled with awe in 
remembrance that He is a consuming fire to those who reject Him, is most 
appropriate as following that which has been said in the preceding context. 


728 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Ver. 4. The preference over the Recepta topvoic dé is merited on account of 
the better attestation (A D* D, Lat. M &, Vulg. Copt. Anton. Max. Bed.) by 
mopvovcg yap. Commended to attention by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. 
Bleek, Alford, and Tisch. 8.—Ver. 8. Elz.: y@éc. But A C* D* M ®& have 
éxy0éc. Rightly admitted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford.—Ver. 9. 7 apadépeate ] 
Elz.: “7 wepidépeobe, Against AC DM &, the later supplementer of B, the 
preponderant majority of the cursives, Vulg. Copt. al., and very many Fathers. 
Already rejected by Grotius, Bengel, and Wetstein, then by Griesbach, Matthaei, 
Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Lachm., Tisch., Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, 
Reiche, and others. Correction to accord with Eph. iv. 14.—Instead of the 
Recepta wepitatyoavrec, A D* &* present Tepimarovrrec. Placed in the 
text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading.—Ver. 10. 
In place of the Recepta ov« Eyxovorv éFovaiary, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads only ob« 
éyovocv, and already Mill (Prolegg. 1292) has condemned éfovciav as a gloss. 
But éovsiay is lacking only in D* Gr. and Lat., in M and with Damascen., 
whereas it is present in A C D** and*** K &, ete. (with Chrysostom before ob 
éyovow). It was erroneously omitted by reason of its similarity in sound to the 
foregoing ob« éyovow.—Ver. 11. Elz. Tisch. 8: To alia wept dpapriag ei¢ ta 
aya. SOD KM 8,ete. Inplaceof this, Lachm.and Tisch. 1 write, after C* al, 
Copt. Syr. al.: TO aiwa cic Ta Ayla TEpi duapriac. By means of its varying 
position, however, 7ept duapriac betrays itself as a glossematic elucidation, see- 
ing that it is entirely wanting in A, in Aeth., and with Chrysostom, and seeing, 
moreover, that some cursive Mss. (14, 47) present in place of the singular the 
plural wept duaptidv, Rightly therefore have Bleek, Tisch. 2 and 7, and 
Alford deleted the addition.— Ver. 17. trép Tov puyov tuov w¢ Adyov arodacovrec 
Instead of which La¢hm. in the stereotype ed. and Tisch. 1 chose the order: o¢ 
Adyov arovdecortec brép TOV Wvyov buov, But the authority of A, Vulg. 
Bede does not suffice for the transposing. Rightly therefore did Lachm. in the 
larger ed., ‘and Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, return to the Recepta—Ver. 18. Elz.: wexoi- 
Samev, Against the preponderating testimony of A C* D* D, Lat. (suademus) 
M, 17, 67** 137, which demands the reading, commended by Griesb. and adopted 
by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford: rec0éue0a, To the latter points also the Ja 
yap ote KaAnv in the Cod. Sinait., since in this codex ore Kaj. has been placed 
immediately before, only in consequence of a manifest oversight of the copyist.— 
Ver. 21. To the Recepta év tavri épyy, instead of which the Cod. Sinait. pre- 
sents only év mavti (adopted by Tisch. 8), had Lachmann in the stereotype ed. 
further added: kat Ady, which he has yet rightly struck out again in the 
larger edition. The addition kai 46y is found only in A, and once with Chry- 
sostom, whereas it is twice wanting with the latter. It is a gloss from 2 Thess. ii. 
17.—Instead of the mere wo/@v of the Recepta, Lachmann reads in the Edit. 
Stereotypa: abvto¢ wordv; in the larger edition: avT@ movdv. But avrdg — 


CHAPS Kim dy 123 729 


rests only upon 71 and D, Lat. (ipso faciente); the alleged testimony of C in 
favor thereof is founded on an error of Wetstein. «iz, however, which has for 
it the authority of A C* 8* and of Gregor. Nyssen., is a disturbing addition, and 
manifestly arose only from a twofold writing of the airov immediately fore- 
going.—Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche, Tisch. 8: ei¢ rode aldvac 
Tov aiover, But Tov aiover is wanting in C*** D, in many cursives, in Arab. 
Armen., with Clem. Alex. and Theodoret. Suspected by Bengel and Griesbach ; 
rightly rejected by Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1, 2,7, and Alford. For it is more 
probable that the simpler formula, occurring for the rest Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, 
would be enlarged into the ampler formula more usual in the case of doxologies, 
than that the ampler would be abbreviated into the simpler one—Ver. 22. D* 
46, 57, al., Vulg. Syr. Arm, have avéyeoUar. Adopted by Lachmann. But 
the imperative avé yeo¥e, presented by the Recepia, is to be retained, as imparting 
more animation to the discourse. This reading is protected by the preponderating 
authority of A C D*** K M &, ete. Am., Copt. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret (also 
in the Commentary), al—Ver. 23. Elz.: 76v ade4¢6v. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 
and 8, de Wette, Delitzsch: tov adeAgdv 7uav, The latter is to be preferred 
on account of the stronger attestation by A C D* M ®8* 17, 31, 387, 39, al., all vss. 
Kuthal. Maxim. Athan. 


Vy. 1-25. Concluding exhortations partly of a general nature, partly 
in special relation to the main purport of the epistle, and concluding 
notices, followed by a twofold wish of blessing. [On Vy. 1-8, see Note 
LXXXIII., pages 745, 746.] 

Ver.1. [LXXXIII a, b.] Exhortation to enduring brotherly love.— 
‘H giAadedgia] The love of the brethren, i.e. love to the fellow-Christians.— 
pevétw] abide, cease not. For, according to vi. 10, x. 33, the readers had 
already exercised this virtue before, and were still exercising it. Yet in 
their case, since they had become doubtful regarding the absolute truth 
of Christianity, and in part already sought to withdraw from the outward 
fellowship of Christians (x. 25), and, moreover, in particularistic prejudice 
closed their hearts against a brotherly intercourse with the Gentile 
Christians, the renewed inculeation of this virtue was of special importance. 

Vv. 2,3. Summons to two particular forms of expression of the general 
virtue, ver. 1. [LXXXIII c.] 

Ver. 2. Exhortation to hospitality? Owing to the hatred of the Jews 
towards the Christians, and the almost entire absence of public places of 
entertainment, hospitality towards fellow-Christians on their journeys 
became, for the Palestinians also, an urgent necessity.—dva taity¢e yap 
éhatliv tivec Sevicavtec ayyé2ovc] Enforcement of the command uttered, by 
calling attention to the high honor? which, by the exercise of this virtue, 
accrued to single remote ancestors of the Jewish people; for by the mani- 





1Comp. Rom. xii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 9; 1 Pet. Anv evdatmovias Kai akapLoTyTos elvar pa Tept 


1y22)3)2) Petia. 7 THY oikiav, év } KaTaxOnvar Kai Feviwy Aayxerv 
2Comp. Rom. xii. 13; 1 Pet. iv.9; 1 Tim. iii. Umewervay ayyedor mpds avOpwmovs, tepal Kai 
25) Tit. 1.8: Betar pvcers, VrodidKovor Kai Urapxo TOD Tpw- 
3Comp. Philo, de Abrah. p. 366 (with Man- Tov @eov du’ dy ota mpecBevt@y baa av OeAjon 


gey, II. p. 17 f.): “Ey 6 ov« of8a tive SiepBo- TO yever Hu@V mpoPcoTical, SuayyéAAEt. 


730 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


festation of hospitality some have unwittingly entertained angels. The 
author was certainly, in connection with this statement, thinking specially 
of Abraham and Lot (Gen. xviii. 19). We have, moreover, to compare 
the declaration of the Lord, Matt. xxv. 44, 45, according to which he who 
entertains one of His people, entertains the Lord Himself—The 4a ov, 
written in accordance with genuine Greek praxis, but not occurring else- 
where in the N. T., forms a paronomasia with érczavdavecdve. 

Ver. 3. Exhortation to have a care for the prisoners and distressed — 
Miurgckecde Tov deouiov] Be mindful (sc.in order to aid them with minister- 
ing love) of the prisoners.—ac¢ ovvdedepuévor] as fellow-prisoners, i.e. with as 
much devotion to them as though the captivity had fallen upon yourselves. 
For the Christians are members of the same body ; as in the prosperity, so 
also are they to share in the sufferings one of the other. Comp. 1 Cor. 
xii. 26. Bo6hme (in like manner Heinrichs too) explains: “ quippe ejus 
naturae et conditionis homines, qui ipsi quoque pro captivis sint, 
nimirum in ecclesia pressa degentes.” Upon this interpretation, it is true, 
the twofold &¢ retains its full significance ; but in order to represent the 
readers as “in ecclesia pressa degentes,” an addition to ovvdedeuévox 
could not have been dispensed with—rav kaxovyouuévwr] of those who suffer 
evil treatment. tov kaxovyouuévwv is the genus, under which the foregoing 
Tov deouiwy are ranged as a particular species.—é¢ kal avroi dvtec év coparc] 
[LXXXIII d.] as sojourning yourselves in a body, thus likewise still sub- 
jected to the earthly order of the world, and not secured against the like 
ill-treatment. According to Calvin and others, the sense is: since ye indeed 
are members of the same body (to wit, the church),—which, however, must 
have been indicated by é¢ kai abtoi év TO cduate Tov Xpiotov dytec. Accord- 
ing to Beza: as though in your own person ye were Kakovyovuevou,—a sense 
which can only with violence be put upon the words. 

Ver. 4. Exhortation to chastity in the narrower sense.— Tijwoc] held in 
estimation, honorable, sc. éorw. [LX XXIILe.] Others supplement éoriv, So 
already the Peshito (honoratum est connubium inter omnes), then Beza, 
Grotius (apud ometes gentes moratas honos est conjugio), M’Caul, and 
others. But against this stands the addition: kai 4 Koity apiavrtoc, since 
the latter could not be asserted as a truth in point of fact. Rather might 
the indicative rendering thereof be preserved by taking the clauses 
descriptively : “Marriage honorable in all things,” etc., which then would 
not be different in sense from the direct requirement that marriage should 
be honorable. Nevertheless, this mode of interpretation too—recently 
adopted by Delitzsch—could only be justified if it were followed by a 
long series of similar statements; here, on the other hand, where impera- 
tives are placed in close proximity before and after, it is unnatural.—dé 
yauoc] marriage. In this sense the word occurs frequently with the 
Greeks. In the N. T. it has everywhere else the signification : wedding, and 
its celebration.—év raow] is neuter: in ull things. The majority take év 
maow as masculine, There is then found expressed in it the precept, either, 
as by Luther and others, that marriage should in the estimation of all be 


held in honor, é.e. not desecrated by adultery; or, as by BOhme, Schulz, 


CHAP. xi. 3-6. (ol 


and others, that it should not be despised or slighted by any unmarried 
person (according to Hofmann, by any one, whether he live in wedlock, 
or he think that he ought for his own part to decline it); or finally, as 
by Calvin and many, that it is to be denied to no order of men (as later to 
the Catholic priests). In the two last cases it is generally supposed that 
the reference is to a definite party of those who, out of ascetic or other 
interest, looked unfavorably upon the married life. But for all three 
modes of explanation, tapa raowv would have been more suitably written 
than év rao; and a preference for celibacy on the part of born Jews in 
particular, to whom nevertheless the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed, 
is an unexplained presupposition, because one not in accordance with the 
teaching of history. —«ai 7 Koiry ayiavtoc] and the marriage bed (against the 
ordinary usus loquendi, Valckenaer and Schulz: the cohabitation) be unde- 
filed—ropvove yap Kai poryoro kpwet 6 Oedc] for fornicators and adulterers 
will God judge (condemn at the judgment of the world). Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 
9f., al. The 6 @ed¢ placed at the close of the sentence is not without em- 
phasis. It reminds that, though such sins of uncleanness remain for the 
most part unpunished by earthly judges, the higher Judge will one day be 
mindful of them. 

Vv. 5, 6. Warning against covetousness; exhortation to contentedness. 
— Ad@iAapyvpoc] free from greediness of money, from covetousness and avarice, 
1 Tim. iii. 8. Comp. vi. 24 ff.—é rpéroc] se. éorw: let the mind and comport- 
ment, the character, be.—apxovuevoe toig tapovow] sc. gore: be contented with 
that which is present. ta xapévta here, as Xen. Sympos. iv. 42 (oi¢ yap 
pahiota Ta TapévTa apkei, HKLoTa TOV GAAoTpiww dpéyovrar), and often with the 
classic writers, of the earthly possession which one has.—airo¢ yap eipyxev] 
for He Himself has said, namely, God, as He who is speaking in the 
scripture; not Christ (Beza, BGhme, Klee).—ot yj ce avo ove ov wy oe 
éyxataainw] I will in no wise fail thee, nor by any means forsake thee. To this 
citation the most similar passages are Deut. xxxi. 6 (oire uy oe avqj, obte my 
oe éyxatadiry), ibid. ver. 8 (ov« avjoer ce, ovdé wh oe éyxatadizy), and 1 Chron. 
XXvili. 20 (ok avjoe: oe Kai ov py éyKatadizy); although, in these passages, 
instead of the first person singular the third person is used. Less corre- 
sponding in point of expression are Josh. i. 5 (oi« éyxataieipw ce ovd 
brepdwouai oc), Gen. xxviii. 15 (ov pf oe éyxatadizw), and Isa. xli. 17 (ovK 
éykatateipw avtobc). On the other hand, there is found a citation entirely 
correspondent to ours in Philo, de Confus. Linguar. p. 344 C (ed. Mang. I. 
p. 4380). It is possible that, as Bleek and de Wette suppose, the author 
adopted the same immediately from Philo. It is, however, also possible 
that the utterance, in the form in which we meet with it here and in 
Philo, had become proverbial. According to Delitzsch and Kluge, the 
utterance of Deut. xxxi. 6 assumed this form in the liturgic or homiletic 
usage of the Hellenistic synagogue, in that reminiscences of other 
similar O. T. passages blended with the original passage. [According to 
Piscator, Owen, and Tischendorf, the reference is to Josh. i. 5.] 

Ver. 6. "Gore Sapporvrac uae Aéyewv x.7.2.] 80 that we boldly say (namely, 
in the words of Ps. exviii. 6): the Lord is my helper, and I will not fear ; 


ou THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


what can a man do to me?—ri romjoee wor avdIpwroc;] is an independent 
direct question. Grammatically false is the construction of the Vulgate 
(so also Jac. Cappellus and others), which takes the words as dependent 
on ov ¢o0ByFyoouac: non timebo, quid faciat, mihi homo. 

Ver. 7. Exhortation to a remembrance of the former teachers, and an 
emulation of their faith—oi jyobuevec] the presidents and leaders of the con- 
gregation. Comp. vv. 17, 24; where, however, those still living are in- 
dicated, while here we have to think of those already fallen asleep. By 
virtue of the characteristic oirsvec éAGAnoav bmiv Tov Adyov Tod Oeod 
they appear as identical with the persons mentioned ii. 8, the immedi- 
ate disciples of Christ, from whom the readers had received the gospel. 
—ov] has reference equally to ri éxBaow rie avactpodye and ty rior, 
—avavewpeiv] the prolonged, closely observing contemplation. Comp. 
Acts xvii. 23.—riv éixBaow tig avactpoggce| [LX XXIII f.] not: the course or 
path of development of their walk (Oecumenius, but without deciding, and 
Lud. de Dieu)—which is opposed to linguistic usage; nor yet: the result 
Jor others of their believing walk, inasmuch as many were thereby converted 
to Christianity (Braun, Cramer)—which must have been more precisely 
defined by means of additions; just as little: the result of their believing 
walk for the jyotyevo themselves, as regards their rewarding in heaven 
(Storr, Bloomfield, and others), for an ava¥ewpeiv of the latter, to which 
the author is supposed to exhort, would not have been possible; but: 
the outlet or end of their walk on earth [1 Cor. x. 18]. Comp. 77 é£odov, 
Luke ix. 31, 2 Pet. i. 15, and ry ddéw, Acts xx. 29. That which is in- - 
tended, seeing that in combination with the @ a¥ewpeiv thy ExBaouv 
THO AvaoTpOoHS a wimetodar THY TioTLv 1s Spoken of, is beyond doubt 
the martyr’s death, endured by the earlier leaders and presidents of the 
Palestinian congregations, Stephen, James the elder, James the brother 
of the Lord, and Peter, whereby they had manifested the strength and 
immovable stedfastness of their faith. 

Vy. 8-15. Exhortation to hold aloof from unchristian doctrines and 
ritual observances 2 

Ver. 8 [LX XXIII g.] is ordinarily comprehended in one with ver. 7. 
Expositors then-find in the utterance either, as Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping, 
and others, an adducing of the motive for the emulation of the faithful 
leaders enjoined at ver. 7; or, as Zeger, Grotius, Schulz, Kurtz, and 
others (comp. already Theophylact), the encouraging assurance that, as 
to these leaders, so also to the readers, provided they only take the 
faith of these leaders as a model for themselves, the gracious aid of Christ 
—of which, however, there was no mention in ver. 7—will not be wanting ; 
or finally, as Carpzoy,! the more precise information as to that in which 
their faith had consisted. More correctly, however, on account of the 
antithetic correspondence between 6 airéc, ver. 8, and rokiAaie Kai Eévaie, 
ver. 9, are the words, ver. 8, taken as constituting the foundation and 


1“Tmitamini vestrorum praefectorum fidem, nimirum hance: Jesus Christus heri, hodie 
et semper 0 avros Deus est.” 


CHAP, xitI. 7 9, 733 


preparation for the injunction of ver. 9. Jesus Christ is for ever the same; 
the Christian therefore must give no place in his mind and heart to 
doctrines which are opposed to Christ, His nature and His requirements. 
—ixdic .. . onuepov ... et¢ Tov¢ aidvac.] [LXXXIITh.] Designation of 
the past, present, and future; exhaustive unfolding of the notion ae, The 
expression is rhetorical , éyé¢ is consequently not to be further ex- 
pounded, in such wise that we must think of the time of the former teachers, 
or of the time before the appearing of Christ, or to the whole time of the Old 
Covenant,’ or even to the eternal pre-existence of Christ*—'Incotc Xprotéc 
is the subject, and 6 avréc (sc. éoriv, not éo7w) the common predicate to 
all three notes of time. Wrongly Paulus: “ Jesus is the God-anointed 
One; yesterday and to-day is He altogether the same ”—which must have 
read: ‘Iyjcovg 6 Xpioréc. But mistaken also the Vulgate, Oecumenius, 
Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, and others, in that they interpunctuate 
after ojuepov: Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day ; the same also in eternity. 
For that which is to be accentuated is not the eternity of Christ, as would be 
the case by means of the éydé¢ kat ofuepov taken alone, but the eternal 
unchangeableness of Christ. 

Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-15, see Note LXXXIV., pages 746, 747.] The ex- 
hortation itself, for which preparation was made at ver. 8, now follows.— 
AWayaic rorKidase kai Févace uy Tapagépecb: | By manifold and strange doctrines do 
not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. As is shown by the connect- 
ing of the two halves of the verse by the yép, expressive of the reason or 
cause, the d:dayai rorkiaac xai Févar are related to the Bpénata men- 
tioned immediately after as the genus to a species coming under particular 
notice; and, as is manifest from ver. 10 ff., both belong to the specifically 
Jewish domain. By didayai rocxirar cai Févaz, therefore, the ordinances 
of the Mosaic Jaw in general are to be understood, the observance of 
which was proclaimed among the readers as necessary to the attainment 
of salvation, while then under Bpéuara a special group of the same is 
mentioned. zovkiAac the same are called, because they consist in com- 
mands and prohibitions of manifold kind; £éva:, however, because they 
are opposed to the spirit of Christianity.—xaiov yap] for it is a fair thing, 
i.e. praiseworthy and salutary.—ydpite BeBaovcba: tv Kapdiav] [LXXXIV 
e1.] that by grace the heart be made stedfast, in it seek and find its support. 
For no other thing than the grace of God is that which determines the 
character of the New Covenant, as the law that of the Old, Rom. vi. 14, 
al. Erroneously, therefore, Castellio and Bohme, yépire means by thanks- 
giving or gratitude towards God ; yet more incorrectly Bisping and Maier: 
by the Christian sacrificial food, the Holy Communion.—oi Bpdéuacw] not 
-by meats. [UX XXIV b.] This is referred by the majority, lastly by B6hme, 
Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. 
p. 158), Alford, Moll, Ewald, and Hofmann, to the Levitical ordinances 


1Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Lim- 3 Calvin, Pareus, al. 
borch, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, 4Ambrose, de Fide, y. 1. 25; Seb. Schmidt, 
Maier, Kluge, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, al. Nemethus, and others, 


-2Bengel, Cramer, Stein. 


734 : THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


concerning pure and impure food. But only of the sacrificial meals can 
ov Boduacw be understood. For rightly have Schlichting, Bleek, and 
others called attention to the fact that (1) the expression, ver. 9, is more 
applicable to the enjoyment of sacred meats than to the avoiding of un- 
clean meats. Schlichting: Cor non reficitur cibis non comestis, sed com- 
estis. Ciborum ergo usui, non abstinentiae, opponitur hic gratia; that (2) 
it is said of the Christians, at ver. 10, in close conjunction with ver. 9, that 
they possess an altar of which the servants of the Jewish sanctuary have 
no right to eat; that, finally, (8) at the close of this series of thoughts, 
ver. 15, the reference to the sacrifices is retained, inasmuch as there, in 
opposition to the Levitical sacrifices, it is made incumbent on Christians 
through Christ continually to offer sacrifices of praise unto God. Tho- 
luck, it is true, objects to this reasoning: (1) that Bpduara may denote “ the 
clean, legally permitted meats, with (the mention of) which is at the same 
time implied the abstinence from the unclean.” But this expedient is 
artificial and unnatural; since, if we had in reality to think of the Leviti- 
cal precepts with regard to food, in the exact converse of that which 
happens the avoiding of unclean meats would be the main idea brought 
under consideration. (2) That the connection of ver. 10 with ver. 9 would 
only apparently be lost, since one may warrantably assume the following 
line of thought; “Do not suffer yourselves to be led astray by a variety 
of doctrines alien to the pure truth—surely it is a fairer thing to assure 
the conscience by grace than by meats, by means of which no true ap- 
peasement is obtained; we Christians have an altar with such glorious 
soul-nourishment, of which no priest may eat.” But this supposed 
thought of ver. 10 would be highly illogical. For how does it follow from 
the fact that Christians have an altar of most glorious soul-nourishment, 
that no priest may partake of the same? Logically correct, certainly, 
would be only the thought: for we Christians possess an altar with such 
glorious soul-nourishment, that we have no need whatever of the Leviti- 
cal ordinances regarding food. Then again, at ver. 10, nothing at all is 
written about “ glorious soul-nourishment;” but, on the contrary, the de- 
sign of this verse can only be to make good the incompatibility of the 
Christian altar with the Jewish. «(8) That the exhortation to the spiritual 
sacrifices, ver. 15, may be more. immediately referred back to ver. 10. 
But ver. 10 stands to ver. 9, in which the theme of the investigation, vv. 
8-15, is expressed, in the relation of subordination. The following oir, 
ver. 15, may therefore serve for the introducing of the final result from 
the whole preceding investigation. (4) Finally, that it cannot be perceived 
how the participation in sacrificial meals could have been looked upon 


as a means of justification. But the participation in the sacrificial meals 


was certainly a public avouchment of participation in the sacrifices them- 
selves. Comp. 1 Cor.x.18. Very easily, therefore, might the author be 
led finally to take up this preference of his readers for the Jewish sacrifi- 
cial cultus in this particular form of manifestation, which had hitherto 
remained unnoticed in the epistle—The supports, too, which Delitzsch 
has more recently sought to give to the referring of ov Bpduacw to ordis 


CHAP. xu. 10. 735 


nances regarding clean and unclean meats, are weak. For that Bpaépara 
is a word unheard of in the sacrificial thora, but familiar in the legislation 
regarding food, and that Bpoua is used elsewhere in the N. T. of that 
which is prohibited or permitted for eating, does not in any way fall under 
consideration ; because our passage claims before everything to be intelli- 
gible per se, nothing thus can be determinative of its meaning which is 
opposed to its expression and connection. That, however, the author 
cannot by didayai rorkida cai Eévae have meant the ordinances of the law in 
general, because he has recognized their divine origin, and therefore could 
not have indicated them with so little reverence, is a mere prepossession. 
For the Apostle Paul, too, speaks of them, as is already shown by Gal. iv. 
9f,v. 2, with no greater reverence. We are prevented from thinking, 
with Delitzsch, of “erroneous doctrines invented in accordance with one’s 
own will, though it may be attaching themselves to the O. T. law,” by the 
relation in which didayai¢ rockiAare Kai Févare stands to Bpouacw, ver. 9, and 
this again to 2 ob gayeiv vbx Eyovow éovciar ol TH OKNVH Aatpevovtec, ver. 10.— 
Ev ol¢ OvK OdEAHOnCaY ol mepiratovvrec] [LX XXIV c 2.] from which those busied 
therein have derived no profit, inasmuch, namely, as by such partaking of 
the sacrifice they did not attain to true blessedness.—év oi¢ belongs to oi 
mepirarovvrec, Since these words cannot stand alone, not to dgerpOyoar. 

Ver. 10. Justification of ob Bpouacw, ver. 9, the emphasizing of the incom- 
patibility of the Christian altar with that of Judaism. We possess an altar, of 
which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle, i. e. he who seeks in 
the Jewish sacrificial meals, and consequently in the Jewish sacrificial 
worship, a stay and support for his heart, thereby shuts himself out from 
Christianity, for he makes himself a servant of the tabernacle; but he 
who serves the tabernacle has no claim or title to the altar of Christians. 
That the subject in éyouev is the Christian, is acknowledged on all sides. 
But equally little ought it ever to have been disputed that by oi rq oKNVA 
Aatpebd vtec persons must be denoted who are contrasted with the Chris- 
tians. For, in accordance with the expression chosen, the author can only 
mean to say that the Christians possess the right to eat of the altar; those 
4 oKyvy Aatpebovrec, on the other hand, forego this right. Quite in a wrong 
sense, therefore, have Schlichting, Schulz, Heinrichs, Wieseler (Schriften 
der Univ. Kiel aus d. J. 1861, p. 42), Kurtz, and others, referred oi Th OKNVA 
Aarpetovrec likewise to the Christians, in that they found expressed the 
thought: for Christians there exists no other sacrifice than one of which ii is 
not permitted them to eat. They then suppose to be intended by of rH oxnvj 
Aatpebovrec either, as Schlichting, “omnes in universum Christiani,” or, as 
Schulz, particular officers of the society, who conducted the Christian wor- 
ship. But in the first case—apart from the fact that then, what would 
alone be natural, #5 0% dayety oe Eyoury sovotav would have been written 





'So also Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, 2 Aufl. verse: “that we, whose only propitiatory 
p. 457 ff.), who will have only the twofold fact sacrifice, and one for all alike, is Christ, have 
to be accentuated at ver. 10: “that we are no other profit from our means of expiation, 
priests,” and “that we possess a means of ex- than that we are reconciled.” (!) 
piation,” and brings out as the sense of the 


736 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


instead of é& ob gayeivobx Exyovow éovoiav oi TH cKyv AaTpetovrec—the Chris- 
tians would, as Bleek has already justly observed, have been designated 
by a characteristic which could not possibly be predicated of them; in 
the second, an anachronistic separation into clerics and laity would be im- 
puted to the author, and the sense arising would be unsuitable, since the 
proposition, that the warrant for eating of the Christian sacrifice is want- 
ing, could not possibly hold good of the clergy alone, but must have its 
application to Christians in general. By 7 oxyv% can thus be un- 
derstood nothing other than the earthly, Jewish sanctuary, as opposed 
to the adaydi_ and reAeorépa oxyv of Christians, viii. 2, ix. 11. The 
Th oKnvy Aatpevovrec, [LXXXIV ce 3.] however, are not specially! the 
Jewish priests (viii. 5), but the members of the Jewish covenant people 
universally (ix. 9, x. 2).—The @voaorfpiov further is the altar, upon which 
the sacrifice of the New Covenant, namely, the body of Christ (comp. ver, 
12), has been presented. Not “ipse Christus”? or the @voia itself which 
has been presented,’ nor yet the cultus (Grotius), can be denoted thereby. 
But likewise the explaining of the table of the Supper, the tparefa xvpiov, 1 
Cor. x. 21* is inadmissible. For then there would underlie our passage 
the conception that the body of the Lord is offered in the Supper, Christ’s 
sacrifice is thus one constantly repeated; but such conception is unbibli- 
cal, and in particular is remote from the thought of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, in which the presentation of the sacrifice of Christ once for all, 
and the all-sufficiency of this sacrifice by its one presentation, is frequently 
urged with emphasis; comp. vii. 27, ix. 12, 25 ff., x. 10. Exclusively cor- 
rect is it, accordingly, to understand by the altar® the spot on which the 
Saviour offered Himself, 7. e. the cross of Christ. But to eat of this altar, 
7. e. to partake of the sacrifice presented thereon, signifies: to attain to 
the enjoyment of the spiritual blessings resulting from Christ’s sacrificial 
death for believers; the same thing as is represented, John vi. 51 ff., as the 
eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ. 

On vv. 11-13, comp. Bahr in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 936 ff. 

Vy. 11, 12. Proof,for ver. 10. The proof lies in the fact that Christ’s 
sacrifice is one which has been presented without the camp, and conse- 
quently has ‘been freed from all community with Judaism. Ver. 11 and 
ver. 12 are,as a proof of ver. 10, closely connected, and only in ver. 12 
lies the main factor, whereas ver. 11 is related to the same asa merely 
preparatory and accessory thought (Bahr). For the bodies of those 
animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest are 
burned without the camp ; wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might 
sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered without the gate. That 


1As Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Riehm 
(Lebrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 161), Alford and 
others suppose. 

2 Piscator, Owen, Wolf; comp. Calvin. 

8Limboreh, Whitby, M’Lean, Heinrichs, 
and others. 

4With Corn. a Lapide, Chr. Fr. Sehmid, 
Bohme, Bahr (Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 938), 


Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and others (comp. 
also Rickert, das Abendmahl. Sein Wesen und 
seine Geschichte in der alten Kirche, Leipz. 
1856, pp. 242-246, 

6 With Thomas Aquinas, Estius, Jac, Cap- 
pellus, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, De- 
litzsch, Riehm, /.c., Alford, Kluge, Moll, 
Kurtz, Woerner, and others. 


CHAPS “xii, “UP=KS; 737 


is to say: The N.T. sacrifice of the covenant is typically prefigured by the 
great atoning sacrifice under the Old Covenant. Of the victims, however, 
which were devoted to the latter, neither the high priest nor any other 
member of the Jewish theocracy was permitted to eat anything. For of 
those animals only the blood was taken, in order to be brought by the 
high priest into the Most Holy Place as a propitiatory offering; the 
bodies of those animals, on the other hand, were burned without the 
camp or holy city (Lev. xvi. 27), wherein was contained the explanation 
in an act (comp. Bihr, /. c.), that they were cast out from the theocratic 
communion of Judaism. But thus, then, has Jesus also, in that He 
entered with His sacrificial blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies, made 
expiation for the sins of them that believe in Him; His sacrificial body, 
however, has, since He was led out of the camp, or beyond the gate of 
the holy city, in order to endure the infliction of death (comp. Lev. xxiv. 
14; Num. xv. 35 f.; Deut. xvii. 5), declared by this act to be cast out from 
the Jewish covenant-people. Eat of His sacrificial body, i.e. obtain part 
in the blessing procured by His sacrifice, can therefore no one who is still 
within the camp, 7. e. who still looks for salvation from the ordinances of 
Judaism. Consequently he who will eat of the altar of Christ must 
depart out of Judaism, and go forth unto Christ without the camp (ver. 
18).—ra ayia] as ix. 8, 12, 24, 25, x. 19, the Most Holy Place—The tenses in 
the present mark the practice as one still continuing.—rapeuZo0r4] Charac- 
terization of the dwelling-place of the Jewish people at the time of the 
lawgiving, while it was still journeying through the wilderness and had 
tents forits habitation. The camp was the complex of the tents, enclosing 
the totaity of the people together with the sanctuary. Thus there was 
combined with the idea of locality the religious reference to the people as 
one covenant-people, and “without the camp” became equivalent in 
signification to “without the bounds of the Old Covenant.” But, since 
afterwards the city of Jerusalem, with the temple in its midst, took the 
place of the rapeuBory, the éFo tHe THANE standing in ver. 12, without 
the gate, sc. of the city of Jerusalem, says in effect the same thing as é£wo 
THC TapeuBorgc, VV. 11, 18.—é:6] wherefore, i. e. because the sacrificial death 
of Jesus has been prefigured by the type mentioned, ver. 11.—idiov] oppo- 
sition to the animal blood in the O, T. sacrifices of atonement.—rov adv] 
see at li. 16, p. 182.—érafev] comp. ix. 26. 

Ver. 13. [LX XXIV c¢ 4.] Deduction from wv. 10-12, in the form of a 
summons: Let us then no longer seek salvation for ourselves within the 
bounds of Judaism, but come forth from the camp of the Old Covenant 
and betake ourselves to Christ, untroubled about the reproach which may 
fall upon us on that account. Theodoret: &w tHe mapeuBoAne avti tov é€w 
THC KaTa vouov yevdyeba Toduteiac. False, because opposed to all the con- 
nection, is it when Chrysostom 1, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, 
Paraphr., Clarius, and others find in ver. 13 the exhortation to renounce 
the world and its delights; or Chrysostom 2, Limborch, Heinrichs, Dindorf, 
Kuinoel, Bloomfield: willingly to follow the Lord into sufferings and 
death; or Schlichting, Grotius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr: willingly to 

47 


738 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


submit to expulsion by the Jews from their towns and fellowship; or 
Clericus: to forsake the city of Jerusalem on account of its impending 
destruction (Matt. xxiv.).—roivy] as the commencement of a sentence 
only rare, Comp. LXX. Isa. ili. 10, v. 18, xxvii. 4, xxxii. 23; Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 342 sq.—rov dvecdiouov avtov] See at xi. 26. 

Ver. 14. [LX XXIV c¢ 5.] Ground of encouragement to the ¢épew rdv 
dveiouov Tov Xpiorov, ver. 13.—éyouev] namely: we Christians. Not: we 
men in general_—dde] here upon earth. FErroneously Heinrichs: in the 
earthly Jerusalem.—riv péddrovoav] sc. réaw: the city to come, which, namely, 
is an abiding one. Comp. xil. 22: ‘IepovoaAju éxovpdvioc, and xi. 10: # rove 
Oeuedioug Exovoa TéAuc, He Texvitye Kai Snusovpydg 6 Oedc. Rightly, for the 
rest, does Schlichting observe: Futuram autem civitatem hanc vocat, quia 
nobis futura est. Nam Deo, Christo, angelis jam praesens est. 

Ver. 15. Closing exhortation, through Christ, to offer to God sacrifices 
of praise. Deduced from vv. 8-14.—A? airoi] is with great emphasis pre- 
posed : through Hi (sc. Christ), but not through the intervention of the 
Jewish sacrificial institution. Through Him, inasmuch as by the all- 
sufficiency of His expiatory sacrifice once offered, He has qualified 
believers so to do.—fvoiav aivécewc] a praise-offering (BVA NI), thus a 
spiritual sacrifice, in opposition to the animal sacrifices of Judaism.—dé.a 
mavréc| continually. For the blessings obtained through Christ are so 
abundant and inexhaustible, that God can never be sufficiently praised 
for them.—rovréorw xaprov yeidéwv duohoyobvtwy 7H ovéuate avtov] that is, 
fruit of lips which praise His name. Elucidation of the meaning in @uciav 
aivécewc, in order further to bring into special relief the purely spiritual 
nature of this Christian thankoffering already indicated by those words. 
The expression kaprov yeraéwv the author has derived from Hos. xiv. 
3, LXX.: xal avraroddécouev Kaprov yedéwr yuov (in the Hebrew: mw) 
wna’ O79, let us offer for oxen our own lips).\—The referring of airod to 
Christ (so Sykes, who finds the sense: confessing ourselves publicly as the 
disciples of Christ) is unnatural, seeing that God has been expressly men- 
tioned only just before as the One to whom the Ovoia aivécewe is to be 
presented. 

Ver. 16. [On Vv. 16-21, see Note LX XXYV., pages 747, 748.] Exhorta- 
tion to beneficence. By means of dé this verse attaches itself to the pre- 
ceding, inasmuch as over against the Christianly devout mind which 
expresses itself in words, is placed the Christianly devout mind which 
manifests itself in deeds.—Tie dé ebrotag Kai Kowwviac py exidaavdavecde] 
([LXXXYV a.] Of well-doing, moreover (the substantive eizocia only here 
in the N. T.; ed roeiv, Mark xiv. 7), and fellowship (i.e. communication 
of earthly possession, comp. Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 18), be not forgetful 
(ver. 2).—rovatrace yap Avoia¢g evapeoteitar 6 Oedc]: for in such sacrifices God 


1 For the thought, comp. Vajikra R. 9. 27, in preces cessabunt, sed laudes non cessabunt. 
Wetstein: R. Pinchas, R. Levi et R. Jocha- Philo, de Sacrificantibus, p. 849 E (with Mang. 
nam ex ore R. Menachem Galilaei dixerunt : II. p. 253): thy apiotnyv avayovar buaiav, 
Tempore futuro omnia sacrificia cessabunt, Upvots kal evyaptotiacs Tov EevEpyéTHY Kai TwTNpA 
eacrificium vero laudis non cessabit. Omnes cov yepaipovtes. ; 


CHAP. x1tt. 14-18, 739 


has pleasure.—rowtrac] refers back only to ebmouac Kat kowvoviac, not 
likewise to ver. 15..—The formula eiapecroduat rive is elsewhere foreign 
to the N. T. as to the LXX.; with later Greek writers, however, not 
unusual. 

Ver. 17. Exhortation to obedience to the presidents of the assembly. 
[LXXXV b.] Comp.1 Thess. v. 12, 13.—tMei#eob_e roic Hyovpmévowg Duav Kal 
imeixere] Obey your leaders, and yield to them. Bengel: Obedite in iis, quae 
praecipiunt vobis tanquam salutaria; concedite, etiam ubi videntur plus- 
culum postulare. The demand presupposes, for the rest, that the author 
knew the #yotwevoc as men like-minded with himself, who had kept them- 
selves free from the hankering after defection —airoi yap ayputvovow wbrép 
Tov poxav vuov] for it is they who watch for your souls, for the salvation thereof. 
—w¢ Adyov arodacovrec] as those who must give an account (of the same), se. to 
God and the Lord at His return —iva] is the subsequently introduced note 
of design to meifecbe kat breixere, On that account, however, it is not per- 
mitted, with Grotius, Carpzov, and others, to enclose abroi yap... tuov 
within a parenthesis; because the subject-matter of the clause of design 
refers back to the subject-matter of the foregoing establishing clause.— 
pera xapac] with joy, namely, over your docility.—rovr0] se. r5 aypurvew. Er- 
roneously do Owen, Whitby, Michaelis, M’Lean, Heinrichs, Stuart, and 
others supplement 7d Adyov arodidévar. For the latter takes place only in 
the future, whereas the conjunctive of the present rovadouv points to that 
which is already to be done in the present.—«a? pi orevacorrec | and without 
sighing, sc. over your intractableness.—aAvoireréc] unprofitable, inasmuch as 
it will bring you no gain, but, on the contrary, will call down upon you 
the chastisement of God. A litotes—rovro] sc. 7d orevdtew. 

Vv. 18, 19. Summons to the readers to intercession on behalf of the 
author. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 25; 2 Thess. iii. 1; Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19; 
Col. iv. 3.—repi juév] The plural has reference exclusively to the author 
of the epistle. In addition to himself, to think of Timothy (Seb. Schmidt, 
al.), or of the #yobuevo. spoken of ver. 17 (Carpzovy, Kluge), or of the fellow- 
laborers in the gospel in the midst of the Gentile world, remote from the 
Hebrew Christians (Delitzsch, comp. also Alford), or of the companions in 
his vocation, with regard to whom it was to be made known that they 
wished to be looked upon as joint-representatives of the subject-matter of 
the epistle (Hofmann), is arbitrary. For—apart from the fact that no 
mention has been made of Timothy until now, and that the presupposition 
that the author wished himself to be numbered among the #yotuevor spoken 
of in ver. 17 is a wholly baseless one—the singular, which in ver. 19 with- 
out any qualification takes the place of the preceding plural, is in itself 
decisive against this view. For, even if perchance at ver. 19 the person 
of the writer had to be brought into special relief, out of a plurality of per- 
sons indicated at ver. 18, a distinguishing éyé as addition to the simple 
rapakad could not have been wanting.—reisuefa yap bru «.7.A] [LXXXV c.] 
Jor we persuade ourselves, i.e. we suppose or take it to be so (comp. Acts 


1 Theophylact, Schlichting, Bengel, Béhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Woerner. 


740 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


xxvi. 26), that’ we have a good conscience, since we endeavor in all things to 
walk in a praiseworthy manner. Indication of the reason on the ground 
of which the author believes he is entitled to claim an interest on the part 
of the readers, manifesting itself in intercession on his behalf. But in the 
fact that he regards such explanation as necessary, there is displayed the 
consciousness that the Palestinian Christians took umbrage at him and his 
Pauline character of teaching; to remove this umbrage is therefore the 
object of the justificatory clause.—év raow] belongs to that which follows, 
not still? to éyouev; and waovv is not masculine, but neuter. 

Ver. 19. Tepisoorépwc] is on account of its position more naturally 
referred to rapaxaté than‘ to rovjoar—iva tayiov aroxatactada ipiv] that I 
may the sooner be restored to you, may be in a position to return to you. 
There is to be inferred from these words, neither that the author, at the 
time of the composition of the epistle, was a prisoner,®> nor yet that he 
belonged, as member, to the congregation of those to whom he was 
writing. The former not, because the notice, ver. 23: pe? ot, tav ta yiov 
épxntat, dpouat duac, Shows beyond refutation that the writer at the time 
of the composition of the epistle was able to dispose freely of his own per- 
son. The latter not, because it is illogical to place the general notion of 
a “being restored ” to a community upon a level with the special notion 
of the “return of one who has been torn from his home.” Only two 
things follow from the words, namely (1) from the réycov, that the 
author was still prevented, in some way or other which had nothing to do 
with his personal freedom, from quitting his temporary place of residence 
so quickly as he could wish; (2) from aroxaracra@é, that he had 
already, before this time, been personally present in the midst of his 
readers. 

Vv. 20, 21. A wish of blessing. [LXXXV d.] Chrysostom: IIpérov rap’ 
avTav aithoac Tag evydc, TéTe Kal avTo¢ avToic EmebyeTar TavTa Ta Ayadd.—éd 
Ode rH¢ elphvyc] A designation of God very usual with Paul also. Its im- 
port may either be, as 1 Thess. v. 23 (see at that place): the God of salva- 
tion, i. e. God, who bestows the Christian salvation; or, as Rom. xv. 38, 
xvi. 20, Phil. iv. 9§2 Cor. xiii. 11: the God of peace, i.e. God, who produces 
peace. In favor of the first acceptation, which is defended by Schlichting, 
may be urged the tenor of the benediction itself. In favor of the latter 
acceptation decides, however, the connection of thought with ver. 18 f. 


1 Bengel, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, and others 
take 67-—in reading the received wemocOa- 
wmev yap, and then supposing this to be put 
absolutely—as the causal “ for” or “ because,” 
which, however, even supposing the correct- 
ness of the Recepta, is forced and unnatural 
Yet more unsuitable, however, is it when 
Hofmann, even with the reading mevOdpue8a, 
will have ore taken causally. The sense is 
supposed to be: “if we believe that ye are 
praying for us, this has its ground in the fact 
that we have a good conscience.” But to 
derive the more precise indication of con- 


Kat ev 


tents for the, dependent mev@due8a from that 
which precedes, is altogether inadmissible. 

2 As Oecumenius and Theophylact suppose, 

8Chrysostom: otk év e@vixois movoy adda 
vuiv; Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Luther, Er. Schmid, Tholuck, Hofmann, al. 

4With Seb. Schmidt, Rambach, Bengel, 
and Hofmann. 

5Euthalius, Caloy, Braun, Bisping, and 
others. 

6R. Késtlin in the Theol. Jahrb. of Baur and 
Zeller, 1853, H. 3, pp 423, 427, and 1854, H. 3, 
pp. 369, 406. j 


CHAP. xii. 19, 20. 741 


For, since the closing half of ver. 18 betrayed the presupposition that the 
receivers of the epistle were biassed by prejudice against the person of 
the writer, there lies indicated in the fact, that in the following wish of 
blessing God is designated as the God who creates peace, the further idea, 
that He will also make peace between the readers and the writer, 7. e. will 
bring the Christian convictions of the readers into harmony with that of the 
writer. So in substance Chrysostom (roiro elme da Td oracidlew avrovc. Ei 
Toivuv 6 Fede eipiync Bede éore uy Sactacrdtere Tpd¢ 7juac), Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, Jac. Cappellus, and others. Wrongly do Grotius, Béhme, de Wette, 
Bisping, and others derive the appellation “the God of peace ” from the 
supposition that reference is made to the contentions which prevailed 
amongst the members of the congregation itself. For the assumption of 
a state in which the congregation was rent by internal dissensions, is one 
warranted neither by xii. 14 nor by anything else in the epistle—é davaya- 
yav «.7.2.] Further characterizing of God as the God who, by the raising 
of Christ from the dead, has sanctioned and attested the redeeming work 
of the same.—é avayaydv éx vexpov]-He who has brought up from the dead, 
i.e. who has raised from death. Wrongly do Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, 
Maier, Kluge, and Kurtz suppose that in 6 dvayayév is contained at the 
same time the exaltation into heaven. For, since 6 avayayév does not 
stand absolutely, but has with it the addition é« vexpov, SO must that idea 
also have been made evident by a special addition. There would thus 
have been written 6 é vexpdv ele trpoc avayayév, or something similar. 
Compare, too, Rom. x. 7, where in like manner, as is shown by ver. 9, by 
the Xpiordv ék vexpov avayayety is denoted exclusively the resurrection of 
Christ, and not likewise His ascension. —rov roiéva tov mpoBdtwv tov péyar | 
the exalted (comp. iv. 14) Shepherd of the sheep. For the figure, comp. John 
x. 11 ff; Matt. xxvi. 31; 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4 (6 apyuroiugv). According to 
Theophylact, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofmann, 
and others, the author had in connection with this expression present to 
his mind LXX. Isa. xiii. 10, where it is said in regard to Moses: rod 6 
avaBuBaoac éx rie Sardoone Tov owuéva Tov TpoBdtwr,—a supposition which, con- 
sidering the currency of the figure in the N. T., may certainly be dispensed 
with.—év aivare Sead Hane aiwviov] [LXXXV d 1, 2] in virtue of the blood of an 
everlasting covenant, i.e. in virtue of the shed blood of Christ, by which the 
New Covenant was sealed; comp. ix. 15 ff., x. 29. Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Clarius, Calvin, Bengel, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Kurtz, Hof- 
mann, Woerner, and others conjoin these words with 6 avayayov, but then 
again differ from each other in the determining of the sense. According to 
Bleek and Kurtz (similarly Bisping), the author intends to say: “God 
brought up Christ from the dead in the blood of the everlasting covenant ; 
in such wise that He took, as it were, the shed blood with Him, in that 
He opened up to Himself by the same the entrance into the heavenly 
sanctuary, and it retained continually its power for the sealing of an ever- 
lasting covenant.” But this interpretation falls with the erroneous pre- 
supposition that 6 davayayéy includes in itself likewise the idea of the ex- 
altation to heaven. According to Oecumenius 2, Theophylact 2, and Cal- 


742 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


vin, év, on the other hand, stands as the equivalent in signification to obpv: 
who has raised Christ from the dead with the blood of the everlasting covenant, 
so that this blood retains everlasting virtue; while Clarius (comp. the first 
interpretation in Oecumenius and Theophylact) understands the words as 
though ei¢ 7d eivar 7d aia aitov jpiv ei¢ dvadqKnv aidviov had been written, and 
Bengel, as likewise Hofmann, makes éy aiwar: the same as did 1d aiua (for 
the blood’s sake). But all these acceptations are linguistically untenable. 
Equally inadmissible is it to take év, in this combination, instrumentally 
(Delitzsch, Kluge: “by means of, by the power of, by virtue of;” Alford: 
“through the blood”). For if one insists on the strict signification of the 
instrumental explanation, there arises a false thought, since the means 
by the application of which the miraculous act of the resurrection 
was accomplished is not the blood of Christ, but the omnipotence of God. 
If, however, we mingle the notion of mediately effecting with that of the 
meritorious cause, as is done by Delitzsch and Alford, inasmuch as the 
former dilutes the “ kraft” (by virtue of) into “ virtute ac merito sanguinis 
ipsius in morte effusi,” the latter the “through” into “in virtue of the 
blood,” we come back to Bengel’s ungrammatical equalizing of év aipati 
with dia 76 aiva. Another class of expositors combine év aiyare diabjxne 
aiwviov with the uéyav immediately foregoing; either, as Sykes and Baum- 
garten, in taking roy véyay as a notion per se; or, as Starck, Wolf, and 
Heinrichs, prolonging in connection with it the idea of the shepherd. 
Nevertheless, it is most natural! to regard év aiuate diadAxyn¢ aiwviov as in- 
strumental nearer definition to the total idea rdv roméva tov rpoBatwv Tov 
véyav ; in such wise that by the addition is indicated the means by which 
Christ became the exalted Shepherd, with whom no other shepherd may 
be placed upon a parallel. Comp. Acts xx. 28: mpooéyere . . « mavti TO 
Touvin, &v @ bua TO mvevua Td aylov &eTo ExtoKérove, ToLpaivey THY EKKAN- 
ciav Tov Kkupiov, Hv mepteTorfoato O1ad TOU aipartog Tov idiov.— 
SiadhjKnc aiwviov] Comp. Jer. xxxii. 40, 1.5; Isa. lv. 3, Lxi. 8.? 

Ver. 21. Karaprioa buac év ravti tpyo ayabo) [LX XXYV d 3.] cause that ye 
become apriot, ready or perfect, in every good work. Oecumenius: tAnpdocat, 
tedeoou. - That, for the rest, xarapricac is optative, and not, as Kurtz 
strangely supposes, imperative aorist middle, is self-evident.—eic¢ 7d roujoac] 
Statement of the design, not of the effect (Schlichting and others): that ye 
may accomplish.—rd béAnua abrov] His will, i.e. that which is morally good 
and salutary. There is certainly comprehended under the expression the 
faithful continuance in Christianity.—rov év tyiv 1d evdpectov évorcov 
aitod bia "Iyoov Xpiotov] [LXXXV d 4.] working in you (wrongly Bohme: 
among you) that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Christ Jesus. 
Modal definition to xarapricar.—rd ebdpeotov évariov avtov] Comp. 2 Cor. v. 
9; Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Eph. v. 10; Phil. iv. 18 —dcd ’Inood Xpiorod] be- 


1With Beza, Estius, Grotius, Limborch,  d:aO%jxcnv, as érépas peta TavTyy ovK écomerys™ 


Schulz, Béhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Stengel, iva yap py Tis YrOAGBy, Kai TavTny Sb’ aAAns 
Ebrard, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. Sra0yxns mavOjcecOat, cixdtws avTHS TO aT«Aev 
601), Maier, Moll, and others. tTytov decker. : 


2Theodoret: Aiwvov 52 thy Kawwnv KéxAnxe 


CHAP. Xi. 21-23. 743 


longs neither to xataprica: (Bloomfield) nor to 16 ebdpectov évoriov avrov 
(Grotius, Hammond, Michaelis, Storr, and others), but to roav.—@ 4 d6€a 
eic tove aidvac] sc. iotw—7 déEa] the glory due to Him.—The doxology is 
referred by Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Ernesti, 
Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Woerner, and others, to God; and in favor of 
this it may be urged that in the wish of blessing 6 @ed¢ forms the main 
subject. More correctly, however, shall we refer it, partly on account of 
the immediate joining of © to "Iycov Xporov, partly on account of the 
design of the whole epistle, to warn the readers, who had become waver- 
ing in their faith in Christ, against relapse into Judaism, with Calvin, Jac. 
Cappellus, Grotius, Owen, Béhme, Stuart, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bis- 
ping, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 286), Maier, Moll, and the 
majority, to Christ. [LXXXV d5.] 

Ver. 22. [On Vv. 22-25, see Note LXXXVI., page 748.] Request for 
friendly reception of the epistle—dvéyeobe tod Adyou tHe mapaKAgoewc] 
[LXXXVI a.] bear with the word of the exhortation, grant it entrance with 
you, close not your hearts against it. Mistakenly do the Vulgate, Stein, 
and Kluge make rapdkAnoce here have the signification of “ consola- 
tion.” Neither the verb avéyeofe nor the tenor of the epistle is in keeping 
therewith.—é Adyoc tH¢ tapaxAgoews] Comp. Acts xiii. 15. Not merely the 
admonitions scattered here and there in the epistle (Dindorf, Kuinoel) are 
to be understood under this expression ; and just as little is merely chap. 
xiii. (Semler), or the last specially hortatory sections, chap. x. 19=xiii. 
(Grotius, Caloy, and others), thought of in connection therewith. Rather 
is there intended by it, as also the following é7éorevAa proves, the epistle 
in its full extent—xai yap 6a Bpayéwv iréoreda tuiv] Argument for the 
reasonableness of the request on the ground of the brevity of the epistle: 
for I have also (i.e. apart from the fact that, by reason of your perilous 
wavering in the Christian faith, the admonishing of you was laid as a duty 
upon my conscience), as you see, written to you only with brief words. 
Theophylact: Tooavra eimév, buwc Bpayéa tava dnow, boov mpdc & émediuer 
déye. Quite remote from the meaning is that sense which Kurtz would 
put upon the words: the readers were also to take into account the fact that the 
epistle has, owing to its brief compass, often assumed a harsher and severer form 
of expression, than would be the case in connection with a more detailed anuplifica- 
tion and a more careful limitation—6.a Bpayéwr] of the same import as d? 
odiyov, 1 Pet. v. 12.—émioréAAew] in the signification “to write a letter,” 
elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25. 

Ver. 23. Communication of the intelligence that Timothy has been set 
free, and the promise, if the arrival of Timothy is not long delayed, in 
company with him to visit the readers.—yivéoxete] is imperative, not 
indicative For, that the author would be obliged to communicate further 


1Peshito, Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, ner, and others. 
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Junius, Owen, Bengel, “Vatablus, Nésselt, Opuse. I. p. 256; Morus, 
Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, I. p.278; Stein, Ebrard, Schulz, Bleek ad loc., and EHinl. in d. N. T.,8 
Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Aufl. p. 583: de Wette, al. 
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, N’Caul, Hofmann, Woer- 


744 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 


details concerning the liberation of Timothy in the case that the readers 
had not yet known of it, cannot be maintained ; while, on the other hand, 
upon the supposition of the indicative, the whole notice would become 
superfluous.—yivdoxere arodeAvuévov] [LX XXVI b, c.] know as one released, 
i.e. know that he has been released. Comp. Winer, p. 324 [E. T. 346]. 
Wrongly will Storr, Schleussner, Bretschneider, Paulus have y.véoxere 
taken in the sense: hold in honor, or: receive with kindness, against which, 
equally as against the interpretation of Schulz: “ye know the brother 
Timothy, who has been set at liberty,” the non-repetition of the article rév 
before the participle is in itself decisive-—aroAeAvuévor] is to be understood 
of liberation from imprisonment. Of an imprisonment of Timothy noth- 
ing is known to us, it is true, from other sources, but the possibility of the 
same cannot be disputed. The suppositions, that azoZeAvuévoy signifies : 
sent away to the Hebrews with our epistle (Theodoret, subscription of the 
epistle in many cursives: éypd¢y ard "Iradiac did Tipodiov; Faber Stapu- 
lensis, al.), or: sent away somewhither, and consequently absent from the 
author (Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Carpzoy, Stuart, and others), 
have the simple signification of the word against them.—édv rayiov épyyrac] 
of he very speedily (earlier, sooner than I leave my present abode) comes to 
me (incorrectly Grotius, Heinrichs, Stuart, al.: returns)—dpoua tpac] 
Oecumenius : épyduevoc mpdc tyuac. 

Ver. 24. Request for the delivering of salutations, together with the 
conveying of salutations to the readers.—rdvrac¢ rod¢ yyovpévore tudv Kai 
navtac Tove dyiovc] This designation of persons has about it something 
surprising, since according to it the letter would have the appearance of 
being addressed neither to the presidents of the assembly, nor to the 
whole congregation, but to single members of the latter. Probably, how- 
ever, the meaning of the author is only that those to whom the epistle is 
delivered, for reading to the congregation, should greet as well all the 
presidents as also all the other members of the congregation.—oi azé rij¢ 
‘Iradiac] [LXX XVI d.] is not to be explained from the absorption of one 
local preposition ipto another ; in such wise that it should stand for oi év 
Th "Iradia axd-tye "Iradiac, which is thought possible by Winer, p. 584 
[E. T. 629].. It signifies: those from Italy, i.e. Christians who have come 
out of Italy, and are now to be found in the surroundings of the writer. 
The general expression : oi-amd tie "Iradiac, seems to point to a compact 
number of persons already known to the readers. It is highly probable, 
therefore, that those referred to are Christians who, on the occasion of the 
Neronian persecution, had fled from Italy, and had settled down for the 
time being at the place of the author’s present abode. The expression 
shows, moreover, that the epistle was written outside of Italy. See p. 18. 

Ver. 25. Concluding wish of blessing, entirely in accord with that of Tit. 
iii. 15. 

180 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theo- Schmid, Béhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, 
phylact (all three, however, with hesitation), Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, 


then Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Seb.Schmidt, | Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, and others. 
Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Sykes, Chr. Fr. 


NOTES. 745 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXXXIII. Vy. 1-8. 


(a) Ch. xiii. contains eight exhortations, which are unconnected with the 
development of the main thought of the epistle and also unconnected with each 
other, as follows:—1. With reference to Christian brotherly love, including 
hospitality and sympathy with those in bonds, vy. 1-3; 2. With reference to 
chastity, ver. 4; 3. With reference to covetousness, vv. 5,6; 4. With reference to 
imitating the deceased leaders of the Church, vv. 7, 8; 5. An exhortation not to 
be led astray by Jewish doctrines and observances, vv. 9-15; 6. An exhortation to 
beneficence, ver. 16; 7. An exhortation to obedience to the present leaders of the 
Church, ver. 17; 8. An exhortation to prayer for the writer, vv. 18,19. These 
exhortations are brief, and they are such as might be added by any writer at the 
close of his letter or discourse, whatever was the plan of his work. They con- 
stitute in no proper sense a practical section of the epistle. The very marked 
difference between this chapter and the passage from x. 19 to xii. 29 will be 
noticed by all students, and will tend, as they observe it, to convince them that 
the last-mentioned passage is subordinate to viii. 1—x. 18.—(b) After these ex- 
hortations, the author adds a prayer that the readers may be blessed of God, vv. 
20, 21, and then, with a request that they would kindly receive the appeal and 
admonition of his letter, ver. 22, an expression of his hope to visit them in com- 
pany with Timothy at an early day, ver. 23, and brief salutations, ver. 24, he 
closes the epistle with the Apostolic benediction, ver. 25. 

(c) The special allusion to hospitality and sympathy for the distressed —making 
these the prominent exhibitions of brotherly love which he would mention—is to 
be accounted for in connection with the peculiar circumstances and needs of the 
period in which the writer and readers were living. The prominence here given 
to prisoners among the class of those who suffer evil may, perhaps, have some 
weight as favoring the text-reading deoyioe in x. 34, as the original one. This 
word in the present verse may possibly, however, have occasioned a change in x. 
34 from deopoic to deopuiowe (see Note LXXIV c); but this is less probable —(d) 
év oduare is correctly explained by Liinem., but whether it should be rendered, as 
by him, in a body, or, as by R. V. and others, in the body, is uncertain. The two 
English expressions, in such a case, may be nearly equivalent to each other.—(e) 
That the verb to be supplied in ver. 4 is éorTw, not éori, is placed beyond any con- 
siderable doubt by the hortatory character of the surrounding sentences and of 
the entire chapter. év wdow is best taken as neuter; so Bleek, Alf., Moll, 
Liinem., Delitzsch, de W., Kay, in Bib. Comm., and others. A. V., R. V., 
Stuart, W. & Wilk., Hofm., Thol., and others regard waow as masculine. 

(f) Respecting the word é@aow (ver. 7) Grimm (Lex. N. T.) says, “non est 
sumpliciter finis vitae physicae, sed modus quo vitam bene actam absolverunt mente, quam 
prodiderunt moriendo.” That the reference is to a death by martyrdom, though 
probable, can hardly be affirmed, with Liinem., to be beyond doubt. The proba- 
bility of this reference is indicated by the suggestion that itouov# is involved in 
miotw, which arises from the use of the words in the previous chapters, and by 
the suggestion that this trouov7 was carried to the extreme point in these per- 
sons, which is connected with the fact that they are so prominently mentioned 
as examples of faith. Comp. xi., xii. 4. “Contemplating the way in which 


746 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


(1. e. martyrdom) they end their holy manner of living, imitate their faith,” 
(W. & Wilk). 

(g) The connection of ver. 8 with vv. 9 ff. only, which is favored by Liinem., 
on the ground of the antithetic correspondence of 6 avré¢ with sorkiAac Kar 
gévaic, is not made necessary by this consideration. On the other hand, the 
rhetorical force of the striking words of this verse, and the natural suggestion 
of the ever-continuing sameness of Jesus in the reference to the faith and 
perseverance of the leaders who had died, make the connection with ver. 7 more 
probable. The readers should imitate the faith of those whose lives were already 
finished, remembering the fact that “ Jesus Christ is yesterday and to day the 
same; yea and for ever.’—(h) The explanation of éy@é¢ «,7.A. as a designation 
of the past, present and future, which is given by Liinem., is to be preferred to 
any of the other explanations to which he refers. The writer has in mind, no 
doubt, the case of the deceased leaders, as he thinks of the past, and of those 
whom he addresses, as he thinks of the present. But he uses a universal ex- 
pression, which covers all time and may apply to past, present and future in any 
age of the Church. 


LXXXIV. Vv. 9-15. 


(a) While the primary connection of ver. 8 is with ver. 7, the words of ver. 8 
contain or suggest the idea of the ever-abiding sameness of the great Christian 
truth. This suggestion naturally leads the writer to the exhortation: not to be 
carried away to other doctrines—(b) The principal question of these verses relates 
to the word Bpouacw of ver. 9. The view of Liinem., Blk., and others, that it 
refers to the sacrificial meats, is favored by the fact, that the thought moves on in a 
single line to the end of the passage, if this view is adopted, and that the compari- 
son of the sacrifices of the two systems is in accordance with the suggestions of 
the immediately preceding chapters. Moreover, this writer does not occupy 
himself in the Epistle with the subject of clean and unclean meats, as Paul does, 
but with the O. T. system as a whole, or in its central and vital parts, as a pre- 
paratory and inferior system. On the other hand, there is a reference to Levitically 
clean meats in ix. 10, where Spayaoz is used ; this meaning of the word will more 
easily explain the ‘adjectives moikiAae and févai¢; and it is possible that the 
writer may.intend to change the thought in ver. 10, as Alf. holds:—“ those 
ancient distinctions are profitless ; one distinction remains: that our true meat 
is not to be partaken of by those who adhere to those old distinctions: that 
Christianity and Judaism are necessarily and totally distinct.” If the passage 
is, as Liinemann claims, to be interpreted per se, the view which he takes has the 
greater probability. 

(c) With respect to particular words in this passage, the following points may 
be noticed :—1. yapite (ver. 9) means grace, not thankfulness. The writer is here 
speaking of what is fundamental to the Christian system.—2. ov« dgeA/fnoav 
(ver. 9) is to be taken in a sense kindred to dvwpeAée vii. 18, if Bpduaow refers to 
sacrificial meats, and so no argument for the other meaning of Spex. can be drawn 
from the use of this verb. The writer regards the law in all its parts as 
unprofitable. It made nothing perfect—3. Those who serve the tabernacle 
(ver. 10) are primarily the Jewish priests, but here they are doubtless only 
representatives of all who belong to the Jewish system.—4. éw ry¢ mapeuBodje . 


NOTES. 747 


of ver. 13 means: outside of the Jewish system—the entire figure as applied to 
Christ and His sacrifice being introduced for the purpose of suggesting this idea.— 
5. ydp (ver. 14) gives a reason (additional to that which is indicated in the earlier 
verses and pointed to by roivuv of ver. 13) for éepxeuea «,.7.A.—the reason being 
this: that the readers, as Christians, are not connected with the earthly Jerusalem, 
but with the heavenly. This explanation seems better than that of Liinem., who 
makes yép introduce a ground of encouragement for the subordinate phrase ¢épovte¢ 
Tov ovediouov avTov, 


LXXXvV. Vv. 16-21. 


(a) The preceding verses close with a renewed suggestion of the confession to 
be made through Christ—that is, of holding fast to the Christian system in and 
for themselves. Ver. 16 suggests that they are, as it were, to make the same con- 
fession in their works as related to others. §vo/acc continues the thought, which is 
presented in vy. 9-15, and serves to show that in those verses the writer has 
throughout the idea of sacrifice—thus bearing upon the explanation of fpdayacu. 
xowwvia here, evidently, refers to the imparting to others of what belongs to one’s 
own possessions. It is the sharing or participation of one Christian with another, 
which involves such communicating of good to the other. 

(6) The placing of the exhortation to obedience to their present leaders so near 
the end of the chapter, rather than in connection with the allusion to the leaders 
who had died, is due, not improbably, to the fact that vy. 9-15 were suggested by 
the thought of ver. 8, which was added to ver. 7, and, possibly, also to the fact of 
a remembrance of these living leaders as he was about to refer to himself. 

(c) The yap clause of ver. 18 may be only a modest expression of the writer’s 
confidence in his own Christian character and life, which he might have given at 
any time, or in any letter. But it may, quite probably, be intended to remove any 
unkind feeling which the readers, or some portion of them, had on the ground of 
his Pauline doctrine, and which, if set aside because of a conviction of his sin- 
cerity, ete., so that they should pray for him, might give way to a readiness to 
receive his letter and himself. «adc is better translated honorably (A. R. V.), 
than honestly (R. V.). 

(d) The prayer which he now makes, in his turn, for them, is one which 
gathers into itself the great thoughts of the epistle—the eternal covenant, the 
idea of the last section; Jesus the shepherd leading His people, the idea which is 
suggested even in ch. ii., though not by the use of this word. The petition which 
he offers is to the end that the God of peace will make them perfect—the end 
which is secured only by the Christian system, through the new covenant and the 
death and resurrection of Jesus.—1. év aiuvatc may be most simply explained as 
belonging with avayaydv éx vexpov—the raising of Christ from the dead, viewed 
as the final consummation of the plan of God for the salvation of men, was in the 
sphere of the blood of the covenant. It was only as connected with this blood, 
and this covenant, that it had this significance.—2. aiwviov diafjxyc, not the, but an 
eternal covenant (as A. R. V.). The covenant is here spoken of only as having 
this character—it was an eternal one.—3. kataprica: is not the same verb as 
reheooa, but, if the karaprifew x.7.A., is accomplished for the Christian, he 
becomes reredewwuévoc.—4, Toray év juiv (iptv) «.7.2.,in connection with Troujoat 
«.7.A.—Comp. Phil. ii. 13—5. © (ver. 21) may refer to ’I. Xp.; but, as God is 


748 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


manifestly the subject of the sentence and the one to whom the prayer is 
addressed, there can be little doubt that it should be understood as referring to 
God. The argument which Liinem. gives for the reference to Christ loses its force 
when we consider, that Christ is everywhere in the epistle presented as the in- 
strumental agent in introducing and carrying forward God’s new revelation, and 
that the writer is urging the readers everywhere not to abandon God’s later and 
greater revelation for the earlier and preparatory one. 


LXXXVI. Vv. 22-25. 


(a) Tov Adyov tij¢ mapakAjoews.—These words, as Liinem. remarks, refer to the 
epistle as a whole. They show that this epistle, like all those written by Paul, 
was written for a practical end—the doctrinal part being always, in this sense, 
subordinate to the practical. This writer makes this purpose manifest, in a strik- 
ing way, by adding his one comprehensive tapdxdAyovc after every section of his 
argument.—(b) yiwdoxere is probably, though not certainly, imperative—(c) The 
probabilities, connected with the use of the two words in the N. T. and elsewhere, 
favor giving to amoAeAvuévov the sense of released from imprisonment, and not 
giving this meaning to aroxaracra#® (ver. 19). The argument derived from 
these words either for or against the Pauline authorship of the epistle can hardly, 
however, be considered a very strong one.—(d) oi avd rig "Iradiag is, to say the 
least, somewhat more naturally explained as indicating that the writer was not 
in Italy, at the time when the epistle was written. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


A. 


Abraham, promise of God to, 542-544 ; 
553-555 ; gave tithes to Melchisedek, 
558, 563, 564, 579; example of faith, 
674, 675, 679-681. 

Alexander, 85; mentioned elsewhere, 
whether same or not, 80, 86; the 
coppersmith, 270, 271. 

Alexandria, in Egypt, as the place to 
which the Epistle to the Hebrews 
was directed, 370-376. 

Ambrose, referred to or quoted, 226, 
302, 342, 434, 510, 668, 733. 

American Editor, Notes by. See Notes 
by American Editor. 

Angels, in New Testament, 131, 132; 
“elect,” 174; as “Sons of God,” 401; 
as contrasted with the Son of God, 
406-409; superiority of Christ to, 
426-432; 448-450; myriads of, 716, 
717, 726. 

Apollos, 320-322; thought, by Liine- 
mann, to have been author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, 364-367, 
443, 447. 

Apostasy, punishment of, 651, 652. 

Apostles, Christ so called, 456, 457, 470. 

Apostolic Constitutions, 106, 143, 170. 

Appearing (é7¢avera) of the Lord, 194, 
201, 212, 221, 261, 302, 303, 309. 

Aquila and Priscilla, 273. 

Ark of the Covenant, 605-607. 

Artemas, 7, 12, 15, 320. 

Assemblies of Christians for worship, 
650. 

Athenagoras, referred to or quoted, 117, 
159, 319. 

Augustine, referred to or quoted, 209, 
342, 343, 433, 515, 627, 668. 


B. 


Baptism, 315-317, 324, 325; “ doctrine 
of baptisms,” 528-530, 550; Chris- 
tian baptism, 649. 

Barnabas, supposed to have been author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 351- 
355 ; epistle of, 8352-354. 


- Chrysostom, referred to or 





Basil the Great, 339, 466. 

Bishop. See Episcopus. 

Blood, shedding of, needful to remission 
of sin, 619-621. 


C. 


Cabbalists, in the Pastoral Epistles, 
36, 37. 

Caius, of Rome, 341. 

Call, or calling (Ajovc), 211. 

Carpus, 270. 

Carthage, synod of, 343. 

Charisma, 207, 208, 220. 
Spirit. 

Chastening, 705, 707. 

“‘Child-bearing, the,” meaning of, 108, 
113. 

Christ Jesus. See Logos. Priesthood 
of, 444, 445; High Priest, 493; quali- 
fications of for high-priesthood, 501- 
518, 519-522; “after the order of 
Melchisedek,” 557-560; superiority 
of to the Levitical priesthood, 561- 
577, 582, 583; Mediator of the New 
Covenant, 591, 596, 616. 


See Holy 


quoted, 4, 
79, 82, 83, 84, 97, 100, 102, 108, 117, 
118, 121, 125, 129, 131, 144, 145, 148, 
149, 158, 164, 176, 184, 204, 227, 236, 
238, 239, 249, 251, 268, 272, 281, 284, 
287, 288, 297, 303, 313, 318, 339, 391, 
403, 429, 433, 439, 443, 444, 468, 491, 
515, 519, 534, 538, 559, 567, 574, 599, 
609, 627, 641, 649, 654, 668, 672, 686, 
690, 701, 703, 706, 709, 710, 716, 720, 
737, 740, 741, 744. 

Church organization, in the Pastoral 
Epistles, 48-50; the Church as the 
foundation, 286-238, 244. 

Church, “pillar and ground,” meaning 
of, 128, 136. 

Circumcision, of the = Jewish Chris- 
tians, 286. 

Clement of Alexandria, referred to or 
quoted, 43, 44, 74, 104, 117, 187, 224, 
234, 336, 345. 

Clement of Rome, 25; meaning of répya, 
or boundary, used by, 26-28; quoted, 


749 


750 


43, 49, 101, 340; supposed by some 
to have written the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 363, 364, 692. 

Conscience, 289. 

Covenant, or testament, 617, 618, 632. 

Crescens, 269. 

Cretes and Cretans, 6, 57; labors of 
Paul in, visits of to, ete. 12-17; 
Cretan poet quoted by Paul, 286, 287 ; 
Church in Crete, 292; heretics in, 
293. 

Cyprian, 340. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 339. 


D. 


Deacons, 123-127, 135. 

Deaconesses, 124, 125, 135, 305, 306. 

Death of the Messiah or Christ, 435, 
450, 509, 617, 618. 

Death, meaning of, 212, 213; power of, 
451, 452. 

Demons (daria), warnings against by 
Paul, 139, 140. 

Devil, the, in the New Testament, 121, 
122, 134, 135, 245, 441, 442. 


E. 


Elders. See Presbyters, and Presbytery. 

Elect (éAexroi), i. e., believers, 230. 

Ephesus, 12-17, 63-66, 270. 

Epiphanius, 116, 117, 339, 559. 

Episcopus (bishop), meaning of the | 
term, 115, 133, 283, 292, 298. 

Erastus, 18, 20, 274. 

Esau, 710-713. 

Essenes, 36, 37, 38, 56. 

Eunice, Timothy’s mother, 1, 203, 207, 
259. 

Eusebius, referred toeor quoted, 4, 25, 
43, 67, 250, 336-339, 

Exegetical Literature, 331-334. 

i F. 

Fablas (60), 68, 88, 144, 288, 296. 

Faith, the, 267. 

Faith (z/or/c), in Epistle to the He- 
brews, 347, 667, et Seqq. 

- Families, directions to Titus respecting, 
296-298. 

Fatherhood of God, 439. 

Felix, 31, 32. 

Festus, 30-32. 

First-born, Church of the, 717, 718, 
726. 


Foundation, the, i.e., the Church, 236— 
238, 244. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


G. 


Genealogies (yeveadoyiar), meaning of, 
40, 41, 68, 88, 319, 320. 

Gnostics and Gnosticism, 38-42, 235, 
236. 

God (Geéc), as applied to Christ Jesus, 
130, 136, 137, 302, 303, 807-811, 417- 
420. 

Good works, 318, 325. 

Gregory Nazianzen, 339, 703. 

Gregory of Nyssa, 129, 339, 403. 


13 & 


Hebrews, Epistle to the, exegetical 
literature, ete., 329-334; Introduc- 
tion, Section 1, as to the author, 
whether Paul, 335-351; or Barna- 
bas, 351-355; or Luke, 355-363; or 
Clement, 363, 364; or Silvanus (Si- 
las), 364; or Apollos, 364-367 ; Sec- 
tion 2, persons addressed, 367-380; 
Section 3, occasion, object, and con- 
tents, 380-386; Section 4, time and 
place of composition, 386, 387 ; Sec- 
tion 5, form, and original language, 
387,388; exegesis, Chap. I. 390-410; 
Notes by American Editor, 410-420; 
exegesis, Chap. If. 422-446; Notes 
by American Editor, 446-453; exe- 
gesis, Chap. III. 455-470; Notes by 
American Editor, 470-474; exegesis, 
Chap. IV. 477-495 ; Notes by Ameri- 
can Editor, 495-499; exegesis, Chap. 
V., 501-519; Notes by American 
Editor, 519-523 ; exegesis, Chap. VL., 
524-548; Notes by American Editor, 
549-555; exegesis, Chap. VII. 557- 
577; Notes by American Editor, 577— 
583; exegesis, Chap. VIII. 585-595 ; 
Notes by American Editor, 595, 596; 
exegesis, Chap. IX. 599-629; Notes 
by American Editor, 629-634; exe- 
gesis, Chap. X. 638-658; Notes by 
American Editor, 658-663; exegesis, 
Chap. XI. 667-693 ; Notes by Ameri- 
can Editor, 694-696 ; exegesis, chap. 
XII. 699-722; Notes by American 
Editor, 722-727; exegesis, Chap. 
XIII. 729-744; Notes by American 
-Editor, 745-748. 

Hegesippus, 39, 43. 

Heretics, warnings against in the Pas- 
toral Epistles, 33-43, 186, 198; how 
to deal with, 232, 293, 320. : 

Hermas, 117. 

Hermogenes and Phygellus, 216, 217. 

High priest, Christ our, 456, 457, 492- 
494, Seé Christ Jesus, 


PA 7 Kr 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


Hilary, 342, 559. 

Holy Ghost, sin against, 536, 537, 550, 
551. 

Holy Spirit, source of prophecy, 138, 
139; gift by to Timothy, 149, 150, 
207, 208, 220; in connection with our 
Lord’s sacrifice, 614. 

Hospitality, exhortation to, 729, 745. 

“ Husband of one wife,” probable mean- 
ing of, 117, 118, 134. 

Hymenaeus and Philetus, 35, 56, 85, 
235. 


I. 


Ignatius, referred to or quoted, 438, 49, 
52, 67, 159, 249, 442. 

Incarnation of Christ, 800, 442, 452. 

Inspiration. See Scripture. 

Irenaeus, referred to or quoted, 48, 235, 
250, 341. 

Isaac, example of faith, 682. ; 

Italy, they of, i.e., Christians, 744, 748. 


J. 


James, brother of the Lord, 386. 

Jannes and Jambres, 250. 

Jerome, referred to or quoted, 4, 30, 
44, 125, 162, 167, 250, 289, 342, 559, 
691. 

Jerusalem, the heavenly, 716. 

Jesus Christ. See Christ Jesus and 
Logos. 

Jewish Christians, and Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 368-370. 

Joseph, example of faith, 682, 683. 

Josephus, referred to or quoted, 31, 103, 
174, 373, 386, 423, 505, 558, 575, 589, 
590, 603, 605, 608, 672, 712. 

df udaizers, ‘in Pastoral Kpistles, 35-37. 

Judgment («piwa), 121, 122, 135, 168. 

Judgment (xpiovc), 176, 177, 626. 

Justification, 317, 318, 324. 

Justin Martyr, referred to or quoted, 
43, 117 159, 194, 271, 691. 


K. 
Kingdom, heavenly, of the Lord, 273. 


L. 


Laodiceans, Epistle to, 371, 372. 

Last days, the, 247, 258, 

Law (védu00), 72-74, 89. 

eee ee (avouia), 304. 

“ Laying on of hands,” meaning of, 151, 
156, 175, 182; in Epistle to the He- 
brews, 530. 











751 


Leontopolis, in Egypt, Jewish temple 
in, 373. 

Levitical priesthood, inferior to Christ’s, 
561-577, 582, 583. 

Life, source of, 213. 

Linus, 275. 

“Lion, mouth of the,” 272, 278. See 
Nero. 

Logos, the, 131; dignity of, 393-398; 
world, created by, according to Philo, 
395; incarnate, 398; first-born, 404; 
as to life of on earth, 407-409; Phi- 
lo’s view of, 489. 

Lois, grandmother of Timothy, 1, 203, 
207, 259, 

Luke, 269; supposed to have been 
author of Epistle to the Hebrews, 
355-363. 

Luther, on Epistle to the Hebrews, not 
by Paul, 349, 350; thought it might 
have been, and almost certainly was, 
written by Apollos, 364. 


M. 


Macedonia, 10, 14, 63-66. 

Marcion and Marcionites, 38-40, 44, 46. 

Marcus and Jesus, 363. 

Mark, 269, 270. 

Mediator, Christ the, 98; of the New 

Covenant, 591, 596, 616. 

Mediators of Old Testament, 399. 

Melchisedek, priest of God, king of Sa- 

lem, 557-560, 578. See Abraham. 

Messianic kingdom, 403, 693; period, 

426, 427, 449, 464, 544. 

Money, love of, 190, 731. 

Morality, Christian, basis of, 800, 307. 

Moses, 250; inferior to Christ, 455, 459, 
460, 471, 590; example of faith, 683- 
686. 

Muratorian Canon, quoted, 28, 340. 

Mystery of the faith, 123; of godliness, 
129, 130. 

Myths. See Fables. 





N. 


Nero, emperor, 25, 31, 32; perhaps 
“the lion,” 272, 278. 

New Covenant, 591, 713. See Testa- 
ment. 

New Testament, superior to the Old, 
399, 400, 414, 415. 

Nicopolis, in Epirus, 4, 14-17, 33, 320, 
321. 


North African Church, on Epistle to 
the Hebrews, 339, 340. 

Notes by American Editor, 86-92, 109- 
113; 183-1387; 1538-156; 178-182; 


752 


198-201; 218-222; 241-245; 258, 
259; 275-278; 290-294; 305-811; 
322-325; 410-420; 446-453; 470- 
474; 495-499; 519-523; 549-555; 
577-583; 595, 596; 629-634; 658- 
663; 694-696; 722-727; 745-748. 


O. 


Obedience to authorities, 312, 313, 322, 
323. 

Onesiphorus, 20; Paul’s wish and prayer 
for, 217, 222. 

Onias, temple of, in Egypt, 373, 374, 
375. 

Origen, referred to or quoted, 29, 94, 
95, 250, 336, 337, 345, 433 ; on author- 
ship of Epistle to the Hebrews, 336, 
337 ; on Melchisedek, 559, 691. 


PP; 


Palestine, Christians in, as those to 
whom Epistle to the Hebrews was 
addressed, 369, 376-380. 

Pantaenus, 335, 336. 


Parousia of the Lord, 194, 201, 215, 247, - 


258, 275, 302, 466, 477, 541, 650, 657, 
662. 

Pastoral Epistles, Introduction to, 1-59 ; 
section 1, Timothy and Titus, 1-5; 
section 2, contents of, 5-9; section 3, 
time and place of composition, 9-39 ; 
section 4, heretics named in, 33-48 ; 
section. 5, authenticity and genuine- 
ness of, defended against German 
rationalists, 43-59. - 

Paul the Apostle, writes the Pastoral 
Epistles, Introduction to, 1-59; dis- 
cussion as to his missionary journeys, 
ete., 1-5, 9-12; abode in Ephesus, 13, 
14; imprisonment in Rome, 17; sec- 
ond imprisonment, 24, 25, 30, 266; 


visit to Spain, 26-29 ; places of writ-. 


ing Epistles to Timothy, and Titus, 
32; 33; warnings against’ heretics, 
33, ete.; who these were, 33-43 ; first 
Epistle to Timothy a sort of “ busi- 
ness letter,” according to Huther, 55; 
second Epistle paternal and loving, 
58, 62, 205; Epistle to Titus, charac- 
ter of, 57, 282; love of for Timothy, 
205, 206; exhorts him to courage, 
patience, trust, love, endurance, etc., 
207-215, 224-232; advice of as to 
dealing with heresy, 282; exhorts 
Timothy to duty, 261-263; “ready 
to be offered,’ 265-266; discussion as 
to Paul’s authorship of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, 335-351, 414, 415. 





TOPICAL INDEX. 


Pelagius, 145. 

Perseverance of the saints, 551. 

Philetus. See Hymenzus. 

Philo, referred to or quoted, 143, 374, 
395, 404, 435, 489, 492, 494, 515, 516, 
5438, 545, 548, 559, 573, 576, 589, 603, 
640, 670, 678, 692, 704, 729, 738. 

Phygellus and Hermogenes, 216, 217. 

Polycarp, 43, 190. 

Pontius Pilate, 193, 200. 

Poppaea and Nero, 31, 32. 

Prayer for the dead, 217, 222. 

Prayer for kings and others, 94-97, 110. 

Presbyters, how to be treated by Timo- 
thy, 171-175; two classes of, 181; 
directions to Titus respecting, 283, 292. 

Presbytery, at ordination of Timothy, 
3, 150, 151, 156. Cf. p. 221, 222. 

Prisca and Aquila, 273. 

Prophecy, as to heresies and heretics, 
138, 139, 153; in the case of Timothy, 
150, 156. 

Prophets, the, 292. 


R. 


ae es eternal through Christ, 

13. 

Regeneration, in baptism, 315-317, 324. 

Rest (oaZfartioudc), 483, etc., 497, 498. 

Resurrection, the, denied by heretics, 
235, 236. 

Riches, dangers of, 189-191, 195, 196, 


199, 200. 

Rome, church of, on Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 340, 341. See Trent, coun- 
cil of, 

8. 

Sacrifice of Christ, efficacy of, 613-615, 

625, 644. 


Salem, Melchisedek king of, 558. 

Salvation and redemption, universality 
of, 97, 98, 110, 147, 300, 324, 433, 434. 

Sanctuary, in temple in Egypt, 372- 
374; heavenly, 621-625, 632-634, 
647. 

Sarah, example of faith, 676, 677. 

Satan, delivered to, meaning of the ex- 
pression, 86, 92; under the influence 
of, 170. 

Saviour. See God. 

Science (yvaovc), or knowledge, fa\se, 
197, 201. 

Scripture, inspiration of, 256, 257, 259. 

Second Coming of the Lord. See 
Parousia. 

Seneca and the Apostle Paul, 350. 

Silas (Silvanus), 2. 

Silvanus, supposed to have written 
Epistle to the Hebrews, 364. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


Slanderers (d:éGo%0v), 125, 247, 296. 

Slaves and servants, how to be treated, 
and how to behave, 184-186, 198, 299, 
300, 306, 307. 

Socinus, referred to, 444, 

Son of God, as declared in Epistle to 
the Hebrews. See Logos. 

Spirit, the eternal, 614, 615, 631, 

“Spirit in,” of Christ, 131. 

Spirits, departed, 718. 

Syrian Church, how Epistle to the 
Hebrews esteemed by, 338. 


T. 


Tatian, 44, 45. 

Temple of Solomon, 605; second tem- 
ple, 605; temple at Jerusalem, and 
in Egypt, 369. 

Tertullian, referred to or quoted, 43, 52, 
117, 235, 236, 339, 340, 352, 691. 

Testament, New, in Christ’s death, 617, 
618. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, referred to or 
quoted, 76, 117, 128, 248, 283, 339, 
424, 601, 628. 

Theodoret, referred to or quoted, 4, 10, 
94, 98, 102, 118, 120, 123, 131, 176, 
214, 227, 239, 257, 271, 287, 304, 313, 
339, 433, 444, 459, 461, 466, 468, 508, 
529, 534, 536, 559, 569, 571, 591, 601, 
640, 647, 648, 649, 654, 668, 672, 677, 
686, 700, 705, 706, 709, 715, 737, 740, 
742, 744, 

Therapeutae, 36. 

Theophylact, referred to or quoted, 5, 
83, 94, 102, 108, 118, 123, 125, 141, 
185, 241, 247, 254, 286, 301, 315, 425, 
429, 440, 443, 459, 466, 491, 510, 533, 
535, 545, 546, 559, 561, 563, 569, 586, 
590, 592, 601, 609, 627, 647, 649, 652, 
668, 676, 683, 688, 692, 701, 706, 709, 
716, 719, 737, 744. 

Timothy, parentage and education of, 

* 1; assistant of Paul, 1, 2; travels 
with the Apostle, 3; ordained, 3; 
mentioned in Epistle to the He- 
brews, 3; first bishop of Ephesus, 8, 
4; abused by de Wette, 51, 52, 58; 
“youth” of, 51,52, 155; censured for 
lack of zeal, etc., 208, 220; Paul’s 
advice to, 232, 243-245; urged to 
come to the Apostle, 274, 277, 

Timothy, first Epistle to, 2, 5, 7, 9-12, 
24, 33, 54-57; exegesis, Chap. I. 61- 

86; Notes by American Editor, 86- 

92 ; exegesis, Chap. IT. 94-109; Notes 

by American Editor, 109-113; exe- 

gesis, Chap. III. 115-133; Notes by 

American Editor, 133-137; exegesis, 

chap. IV. 138-152; Notes by Ameri- 


753 


can Editor, 153-156; exegesis, Chap. 
V. 158-178; Notes by American Edi- 
tor, 178-182; exegesis, Chap. VI. 184— 
85 Notes by American Editor, 198- 
201. 


‘Timothy, second Epistle to, 3, 5,7, 17- 


21, 33, 34,58; exegesis, Chap. I. 203- 
218; Notes by American Editor, 
218-222; exegesis, Chap. II. 224— 
241; Notes by American Editor, 
241-245: exegesis, Chap. III. 246- 
257; Notes by American Editor, 
258, 259; exegesis, Chap. IV. 261- 
275; Notes by American Editor, 
275-278. 

Titus, little known of his life, 4; ase 
sisted Paul, 4; first bishop of Crete, 
4,5; Paul’s Epistle to, 280, etc.; in- 
structions to by the Apostle, 283, 
284; date of Paul’s letter to, 292; 
directions how to deal with members 
of families, 296-208; course to be 
pursued as to slaves, 299, 300. 

Titus, Epistle of Paul to, £6, 7, Ade, 
33, 34, 57 ; exegesis, Chap I. 280-290; 
Notes by American Editor, 290-294 ; 
exegesis, Chap. II. 296-305; Notes 
by American Editor, 305-311; exe- 
gesis, Chap. III. 312-322; Notes by 
American Editor, 322-325. 

“To-day” (o7juepor), i.e., eternity, 401, 
402, 415; in Epistle to the Hebrews, 
466, 473. 

Trent, council of, on Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 349. 

Trophimus, 16-20, 274. 

Tychicus, 12, 14-16, 270, 320, 321. 


W. 


Water drinkers and drinking, 176; 
difficult topic to handle, 182. 

Widows, institution of, 48; discussion 
as to, 50, 51; “real” widows, 159- 
162; other widows, 164-169; young 
widows, 169-171; widows in general, 
178-181. 

Wine, Paul’s advice as to use of, 182. 

Women, Christian, place, position, and 
duties of, 105-109, 112, 113, 124; 
some led astray by heretics, 249-250; 
directions to Titus respecting, 296- 
298, 305, 306. 


¥. 
Young men, 297, 298, 306. 
Z. 


Zenas, the lawyer, 321, 322. 
Zion, Mount, 716. 













me 
‘he 7 et ‘= 


Sete Vibe 
2 ve ST ith 6 fe par 


a ie yee as 
Vee bh Pe ger 
inte oh real st st 7 


Le ake 


lee re i. Ue 







re a. teil Rit eb 
ae ere 7 





























ef a) A 2 2 Atl ‘o- : . ae 4 - ; 
ia ry a ps a * 2 ent , : atin i faci ih. ee , 
ni . ate 
fy Fig a te. a Ry _ Pe ¥ fa pias ak I ae Pie vas 
da a oe _ Se K ‘dak 4 5 F a4} Je ais wari Paty | sae aa A> 


= 
WNlsliet! aeteS ol vata) ny roe. F 


re 
* 
OL 9) uae Ss, Pe Ga ‘e , Abs me A _ iehe i aos “ae 


A re a) pea 8 ad 






a 





ie CR Ae eC vie 

‘= 7" ios Anes "a9 big es 2 a, Aa vane ate am? ri A To 

'% Fi ae, = a - eo Sr bal 
4 st 

a hal?) a ee ee ee Or Pepe er ers ge pe 

il as Re Aa ew i ee pih lt Ane. Ale el Diet eae 


; in oh 7 *. — i 
ti a ad es on OE Seah, TH Tees, eet ss: ar 
ste ae dee 0 tia rea MSP dD APRS Ts EY Bnd ie p 
jae aa Ds i mp : od . LED, x, eel eee Lt, ia) os Pe 
PME ce i ae es er Pn me ecm es, ee) 
Sie : x * ett ary ? (ile 4 4 hy i) - ‘ae ae oe At va 
OB ed hive. dey: Me beesey - eit , (b6 ae 
: wt a or x Py a eee : ae re 
Coe Caen te ne [ ibs oa ad eer at a 


4 (lth , ph ae Bath ST eta ee ef ae ei. Bo fee ok ve 
a ; TSG thas fe AU ite eee ne 


. - * 7 j 
: See a ; ; 
a = ot ee oh. geen, 5) 6 Sb nie es re 
. ¢ % Ay ar = aa - 
1ie TT Feel ’ ‘ rr hk ree bh A hy Palas Ao i Oem hon 
r : ULC e Thee wie ay ng Sal <(vhlih* Nhe Ee A ke oi 
; : : ve af fue i f Pat is 4 af it Syne wk he - 
4 ~s 7 eS | Tyas! ,. gt : 
ae a ay a vid + ay vr. ey a tee =e ~ - a heen ie se al 
Pu . y a4 pe © i oe ie aie a 3 1 ; me ¢ ‘ Aes US oa 
es OS 5 vile hes 7 . mh... 
Fides TT inky mie ieee Te ee 
one of ae ‘. Mi ee ie i ooo en pee aren : as a Eaton Pie ' 
‘ ahenalele eh es ieee te ye ae 15 Sawer te: . Ogee "ag ¥ 
se ; a aly hy 
rT i mt a J te Ne aol ch 28 ae id bv hoei Le : 
? » ‘FS f rh ¥ - ot é 
> Ac Tee 2) tah Ht j ac2)'s i wis Weis oto beatae Gk “eva 
me igh DOSE) Were ag a wie) , " Aa: ees a gies mails os we 
ip! A Bl aist poo agua 
© ut Me e : eh Py > is ae OPT ede t Wad Pere, fy, a = 
? gel vi ame elie aie Weer ee ae Ae 


¢ 
, ae ry iets 16 Of OF hol kh x it Mega LO ee ny 
‘ e +, : 7 ~ 


- 7 


a 7 7 Onan ay ' - r " <" aia aa al pate ar ace 4 
ae a ia? adalat eal 
j angi oe teeaeelS tahoe PD 
: fa 20E Watt pede ron? fe ane eee (We ea ie Jee 


, 


ak ieee ho) Se 
- “> =e ey : ' ha ay 16 ig lit otal ww) 


pd briny, Mocebs faelg 
A Ass Prue, <<? fete } ae Serecd tac vat Wate 
paar cae Reet ae ree 


~ 
J - ’ 
* . a ; ic 2 ae 
md . a~ TT > 
° i+ 
re i Ga 
. a i _ p foe 
, - iad ve 








os Ligne 1 a Waa 
sai Th ge ge yet ote : 
Paty 


ioe a. wd eee? at 
e 
eae Fi ot a ipdl or os bai 
eet eas” +S. oe sad ee 
: Tan eae i - 
SOME tk? ange corha anes ¥, ay 
7 ie > ? in 1! 
» 
i 












oy hy $ ° a 
. = aes a 
ee 16 Ot Aan! See, alsciA ee 


aig ee ee eat Terie i oe. 


As oe Oy oF UU egy et Hes “ ‘Dies es aie £h oliorl :GM 


a 


oe ote! f as belek pe ea | - UD Rl Sa! 


Serb celmp eat i “Wiel m9: ee wt ga Wi grit & iss 


Lv). a © ire if@ eo ° f Je 4 es ee Bia ie 
i el § b a a 
ted fens Ly — i eT 68 Ab - ; a 0 yf rile Dal : } ia aS 
x an t hears » + ; : bars 
. ae Pee ie fab Ur) » #P ise rain. ne wales 


Set q: 


Pie ee ae ee nyse 


=. i hk eee — re a ’ e hed (te MM 4 Tai phd des 
a vey os or i» a7 i. af Par ' rs 
- 4 = , } y : ewe. 4: 7h 
Dien Des 7 si hae 
or a Cpa vi hical oot. 4 + aay t ; Marya rh? ’ 
; a) i. 2 i= Sra Gy ie a | iis 
OOF Ge Wie rey i ae S 4 
Li dives, eT p= 


ie), Some Cao Abt ns 4 Rate ee ee 
112i eg re hay a oe weTEL | PL i ai re? tee R06 


' pers! oie i 
= * ; i es ok Paid 7 
- : 4 ray Pic 4 co Meh i, tg fl wee Aes in a 
Geek rh) — dl prt ie ; i a * oy Sree. 
fe im C ~~ i. = —¥ J : “ 
= ar! i ie J yet te Pe - =? a + 
Oe nets Woke cue sO er aes ad ae eee 
a ee re J ery. y : + ~ r 
Neate f . Sit EY Se so cagetd | ies ae 
Ran ss a ee, ia ~ i at eta fre : i Mk ‘ 
eet Dsl ane ath Pat Oe ere nee 
ae oe is ee ae aad: OL Fe Ro ee ae 
a ‘is es ite ii _— y 
: : te ‘ _ ey? + el 2g at i wih > etek sil a. 
ae @ os f dared cn ALY: Vike Baca Suk ml “ Tegra be ey 
: ats hh { ei - a 
fae ae eee a oe GL) 
Tiel en, REO VW AieGd Teil Using ‘ ei spt ce wtp leet toe “—. 


iw % MS hog) a Py id rey 
ae, a ¥ aa _ id ay - iy - i 4) Big Bg aa 18h)! tiie hy Eee ark vi iy (ay 
P ; wah LP tone mk Ob se 


t 
ey 
qe) 
"y 
. 
* 


£08 30940 ner recis “ile ia ede 

Mi 18 eters ale vod coiteaeete a 

is ~ « / w a a CO NEA =, Mal tee me X 
<< Fie 5 dio Fi EA ag eS eg 

de OE PG, a aD ecco ed ce as yaa : 


esa . am (ie 8 vara ras A sinks Geel aht a 2 


Je 


- ; ote aba Pots) ail P ' ful J. foe ce) ye? a Lavine ir 
‘o i Pri PG MSE! ae z re Pl AOA. 
7 iva 
Y bf je «Tub opel Up Poe ha Li 

















ad 


ot 



















Date Due 






























ae cs 
WW) + 


ey : iat we 


iar & 


AY un Ke Nef 








